Allowed

Jyotindrabhai Dipaklal Barot v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC18 Feb 2022CR.MA/12981/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court issued a common oral order to quash multiple criminal miscellaneous applications. Upon hearing parties and verifying a settlement, the court held that continuing proceedings in a matrimonial dispute would be futile, relying on Supreme Court precedents. The FIR and consequential proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR being C.R. No. 11191030200035 of 2020 and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners. Rule made absolute.

Jyotindrabhai Dipaklal Barot Vs State of Gujarat — Dowry and Cruelty | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

R/CR.MA/12609/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12609 of 2020 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12999 of 2020 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12981 of 2020 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12996 of 2020 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12909 of 2020 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 14814 of 2020

¶3

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

¶4

NIYATIBEN UDAYANBHAI BAROT

¶5

Versus

¶6

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

======================================================== Appearance:

¶8

MS SRUSHTI A THULA(5014) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR RUTVIJ S OZA(5594) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS. KITTY S MEHTA(7025) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS MAITHILI D MEHTA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

¶11

Date : 18/02/2022

¶12

COMMON ORAL ORDER

¶13

Heard learned Advocate Ms. Srushti Thula on behalf of the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili D. Mehta on behalf of respondent no.1- State and learned Advocate Ms. Kitty Mehta on behalf of respondent no.2- original complainant.

¶14

Rule. Learned APP Ms. Mehta waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1- State and learned Advocate Ms. Kitty Mehta waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.2- original complainant.

¶15

By way of these petitions the petitioners have prayed for quashment

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

R/CR.MA/12609/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022

¶18

of FIR being C.R. No. 11191030200035 of 2020 registered with Mahila Police Station, West, Ahmedabad City on 07.08.2020 for offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶19

Learned Advocate Ms. Thula on behalf of the petitioners would submit that petitioners herein are all accused in case of the said impugned FIR. Learned Advocate would submit that while the applications had been preferred praying quashment of the complaint on its merits, pursuant to interventions of family members, the issue is settled between the parties and whereas the complainant would not have any objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.

¶20

Learned Advocate Ms. Kitty Mehta on behalf of the original complainant would support the submission made by learned Advocate Ms.Thula. Learned Advocate Ms. Mehta would further submit that the complainant is present and she may be permitted to join the meeting. Permission is granted. Upon permission being granted and upon joining the meeting the complainant -Kinnariben w/o Pruthavbhai Barot who is identified by learned Advocate Ms. Kitty Mehta upon inquiry by this Court confirms the fact of settlement and further consents for quashing of the complaint.

¶21

Learned APP Ms. M.D. Mehta would submit that this Court may pass appropriate order in view of the settlement between the parties.

¶22

Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

¶23

This Court has considered the fact that the dispute between the parties was matrimonial in nature. This Court has also considered the

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

R/CR.MA/12609/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022

¶26

affidavit filed by the original complainant and whereas the complainant having remained present has also confirmed the fact of settlement. In that view of the matter in the considered opinion of this Court permitting the FIR and its proceedings arising therefrom to continue any further will be an exercise in futility. This Court relies upon the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab , reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors. , reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) to arrive at the above conclusion.

¶27

Having regard to the above discussions, the impugned FIR being C.R. No. 11191030200035 of 2020 registered with Mahila Police Station, West, Ahmedabad City on 07.08.2020 for offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. The petitions stand disposed of as allowed.

¶28

Direct service is permitted.

¶29

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)

¶30

NIRU

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Jyotindrabhai Dipaklal Barot v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyotindrabhai Dipaklal Barot 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punambhai Kantibhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Panjabilal Shankrdayal Sen Vs State of Gujarat

Dilipbhai @ Musabhai Abdulgani Vohra Vs State of Gujarat

Premgiri Devgiri Goswami Vs State of Gujarat

Renukaben Prakashbhai Barot Vs State of Gujarat

Niyatiben Udayanbhai Barot Vs State of Gujarat