Allowed

Harishbhai Gokuldas Gondalia v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC11 Dec 2018SCR.A/3377/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat disposed of two criminal applications where parties had cross-filed FIRs dissimilar from each other regarding an alleged incident. Upon the death of one petitioner and mutual settlement of disputes between heirs and respondents, the court granted permission to file new vakalatnamas and affidavits. The court observed that since the disputes were settled amicably, keeping t

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No. 1302 of 2014, FIR C.R. No. I-376 of 2013, and FIR C.R. No. I-377 of 2013 were quashed and set aside; both applications disposed of; direct service permitted.

Harishbhai Gokuldas Gondalia Vs State of Gujarat — Quashing and FIR | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

R/CR.MA/5801/2014 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5801 of 2014

¶4

With

¶5

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3377 of 2013

¶6

==========================================================

¶7

SWAPNIL SURENDRABHAI RAJPUT

¶8

Versus

¶9

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

Appearance:

¶12

MR. Y.S. LAKHANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5

¶13

MR. MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶14

UNSERVED EXPIRED (N)(9) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2

¶15

==========================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

¶17

Date : 11/12/2018

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

1.The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Y.S. Lakhani
for the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application
No. 5801 of 2014 and Mr. Dharmesh Patel, learned
advocate appearing for the petitioners in
Special Criminal Application No. 3377 of 2013
submit that Harishbhai Gokuldas Gondalia was the
respondent No. 2 in Criminal Misc. Application
No. 5801 of 2014, and was the petitioner No. 1
in Special Criminal Application No. 3377 of
2013, however he has already expired. They
further submit that the disputes between the
parties have already been settled as the cross
complaints were filed by the parties against
each other with regard to the same alleged

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

R/CR.MA/5801/2014 ORDER

¶22

incident.

¶23

2.The learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Patel
seeks permission to file his vakalatnama on
behalf of sons of deceased Harishbhai Gondalia,
and also seeks permission to place on record the
affidavits filed by his two sons namely Kunal
Harishbhai Gondalia and Nipul Harishbhai
Gondalia. The permission, as sought for, is
granted. Mr. Dharmesh Patel, learned advocate
may file his vakalatnama during the course of
the day. The affidavits filed by Nipul
Harishbhai Gondalia and Kunal Harishbhai
Gondalia in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5801
of 2014, and the affidavit filed by Mr. Sanjiv
son of Shashidhar Sulhan Pande in Special
Criminal Application No. 3377 of 2013, are

¶24

permitted to be taken on record.

¶25

3.Having regard to the submissions made by
learned advocates for the parties and to the
affidavits filed by them, it appears that the
FIR being C.R. No. I-376 of 2013 was lodged by
Harishbhai Gondalia against Swapnil Surendrabhai
Rajput and others, whereas the FIR being C.R.
No. I-377 of 2013 was filed by complainant
Sanjeev Shashidhar Sulhan Pande against
Harishbhai Gondalia and others in respect of the
alleged incident. Now, since the said
Harishbhai Gondalia has already expired, his
sons have filed the affidavits stating inter

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

R/CR.MA/5801/2014 ORDER

¶28

aliathat they have no objection if the
proceedings in respect of the FIR being C.R. No.
I-376 of 2013 culminated into chargesheet and
the Criminal Case No. 1302 of 2014, are quashed
and set aside. The complainant Sanjiv
Shashidhar Sulhan Pande has also filed the
affidavit stating inter alia that he has also no
objection if the FIR being C.R. No. I-377 of
2013 filed against Harishbhai Gondalia and
others, are quashed and set aside. Since the
matter has been amicably settled between the
parties, as stated by them in their respective
affidavits, no useful purpose would be served in
keeping the case pending.

¶29

4. In view of the above, the FIR being C.R. No. I-377 of 2013, and the FIR being C.R. No. I-376 of 2013 culminated into chargesheet and the Criminal Case No. 1302 of 2014, are quashed and set aside.

¶30

5. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

¶31

(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J)

¶32

AMAR SINGH

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Harishbhai Gokuldas Gondalia v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishbhai Gokuldas Gondalia v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinubhai Haribhai Malavia Vs State of Gujarat

Bhimjibhai Narsibhai Malavia Vs State of Gujarat

Lakhiben Wd/O Parsottam Magan Vs State of Gujarat

Dilipkumar Ramanlal Shah Vs State of Gujarat

Jalibhai Sarsangbhai Rathwa Vs State of Gujarat

Amitbhai Padmakantbhai Vaishnav Vs N.D.Ramanandi or His Successor in Office, Inspector