Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1869 (GUJ)

Jigneshbhai Kanubhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat

2016-09-01

SONIA GOKANI

body2016
ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J. The matter deserves to be dismissed for want of prosecution at the same time even on merits also it lacks substance. 2. This Court, on 29.08.2016, passed the following order. “This matter is being rotated on the Board since February, 2016. Today, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Upadhyay, has filed sick-note. Hence, S.O to 1st SEPTEMBER, 2016. To be listed within first 20 matters. On the next date of hearing, if, it is note convenient to Mr. Upadhyay to attend the Court, he shall make alternative arrangements. The matter shall be PROCEEDED WITH on the next date.” 3. Today, once again learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Upadhyay is not present. The request for adjournment is made on his behalf by learned advocate Vishal Sevak. 4. As indicated on the last occasion, the matter has been rotating from 11.02.2016. The petitioner is seeking quashment of FIR being I.C.R No. 64 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad. 5. It appears that, complaint came to be lodged by the wife of the present petitioner alleging cruelty and harassment at the hands of the present petitioner and in-laws. Charge-sheet came to be filed on 05.01.2006 against other accused and the present applicant, in column no. 2 of the charge sheet, has been shown as absconding accused. This Court also notices that in the judgment and order of the acquittal in case of rest of the accused, passed by the learned 13th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand in Criminal Case No. 47 of 2012 dated 05.02.2013 and thereafter by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2013 dated 24.06.2014, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashment of the complaint. It has been preferred on the ground that, since the parents and younger sister of the petitioner have been acquitted and none of the witnesses has spoken anything against the petitioner, his case also be considered for quashment of complaint and hence, this petition with the following prayers. It has been preferred on the ground that, since the parents and younger sister of the petitioner have been acquitted and none of the witnesses has spoken anything against the petitioner, his case also be considered for quashment of complaint and hence, this petition with the following prayers. “(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this Application; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the FIR being I CR No. 64 of 2005 dated 22.12.2005 for the offences punishable u/s 498A, 323 and 114 of the IPC registered with Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad and the charge-sheet which is now transferred to Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Anand. (C) Your Lordships may be pleased, pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, to stay the further proceedings of the FIR being I CR No. 64 of 2005 dated 22.12.2005 for the offences punishable u/s 498A, 323 and 114 of the IPC registered Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad and the charge-sheet which is now transferred to Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Anand.” 6. From the memo of petition, it is apparent that, the petitioner is desirous of getting benefits of the trial of the co-accused. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in 2012 (0) GLHEL-HC-226880 in the case of Abdul Kadar Husen Saiyed v. State of Gujarat wherein the co-accused had been discharged and the order had attained finality and the Court hold that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the case against the co-accused. 7. The petitioner has evaded process of law all these years right from the year 2005 and has chosen to abscond. However, according to him, he had gone away to United Kingdom (U.K). Be that as it may, the fact remains that he was never available to the criminal justice system, in the complaint which had been filed by his wife concerning matrimonial discord. He can not claim the benefit of his own wrong doing on returning after so many years, however, allegations made in the complaint even while this Court does not go into detail of the same, prima facie the case is not made out to quash the complaint. 8. For the above reasons, this petition is dismissed.