Tag Archives: #Gujarathighcourt

TITLE  – Kamlesh Ramchandra Wadhwani Versus State of Gujarat and Others

Decided On-: August 25, 2023

340 of 2013

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. M.R Mengdey

INTRODUCTION-  

The Petitioner [Original Accused] has challenged the order made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 1, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case by filing the current Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

FACTS OF THE CASE

According to the Revision Application, a complaint was filed against the Petitioner at the request of the Complainant, Kailash Nanakram Wadhwani, for the offence punishable under Sections 408 and 506(1) of the Penal Code, 1860. The aforementioned FIR resulted in Criminal Case No. 2076 of 2008, which was still in the trial phase before the relevant Trial Court. Exhibit 14 of the application was submitted on behalf of the applicant during the pendency of the proceedings, requesting acceptance of the parties’ agreement to dismiss the current charges because the matter had been amicably resolved between the parties and the offence levelled against the petitioner was compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

According to the advocate’s attorney, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and the alleged offence against the petitioner is compoundable in light of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He has also provided a copy of the first known informant’s deposition. In addition, he claimed that Respondent No. 2 in this case had applied to the relevant Trial Court for the compounding of the offence in accordance with Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Trial Court denied the said application on the grounds that, in accordance with Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an offence punishable under Section 408 of the IPC can only be compounded up to Rs. 2000, and since the sum at issue in this case above Rs. 1 lac, the same is not compoundable.

 

Therefore, it appears that the concerned Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order given that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and that Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code is completely silent regarding the compounding of an offence punishable under Section 408 of the IPC only to the extent of Rs. 2000. As a result, the application deserves to be approved, and as such, it is approved hereby. In accordance with the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the impugned order is hereby reversed and set aside, and Respondent No. 2 is permitted to compound the offence.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

 

Click here to view judgment

TITLE  – Madhuri Versus Lalit Shankarlal Gangvani

Decided On-: August 22, 2023

304 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. J.C Doshi

INTRODUCTION-  

In this petition filed under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the petitioner has prayed to transfer Family Suit No. 102 of 2022 pending before the learned 6 Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gandhidham – Kachchh to learned Family Court, Jamnagar inter alia on the ground of convenience.

FACTS OF THE CASE

According to Hindu law, the petitioner and respondent were legally wed on December 7, 2011, at Gandhidham. This is the case of the petitioner, who is the respondent’s wife in this case. It is claimed that they have one child, named “Prakash,” who is living with the mother of the petitioner, who was born out of wedlock. Since then, the petitioner-wife has lived with the respondent-husband as the respondent’s legally wedded wife; however, after some time, the respondent and his family members began demanding dowry from the petitioner and her parents, which the petitioner’s parents were unable to manage; as a result, the respondent-husband & his family members began harassing the petitioner, and the petitioner has been driven out of her home.

The petitioner claims she was harassed by the respondent’s in-laws, including the petitioner’s husband, the respondent in this case, and that she was evicted from the home as a result.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

A knowledgeable attorney for the petitioner would argue that Gandhidham and Jamnagar are separated by 250 km. The petitioner must travel from Jamnagar to Gandhidham on every date in order to attend the proceedings, which is quite inconvenient for the petitioner. He would contend that the petitioner is only requesting the transfer of the Family Suit due to the inconvenience she is experiencing. The petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney would also argue that, in the event that the family lawsuit is transferred from the Civil Court in Gandhidham to the Family Court in Jamnagar, the petitioner should forego requesting reimbursement for the transportation costs she incurred to attend the proceedings. He asked for the petition to be approved in light of these submissions.

Due to the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances as well as the preceding factors, this petition merits consideration. Consequently, the petition is approved.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgment

 

TITLE  – Pappu Versus  State of Gujarat and Others

Decided On-: August 22, 2023

4695 of 2014

INTRODUCTION-  

The original accused has asked to have the FIR for the offences punishable under Section 25(1)(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act quashed and set aside by filing the current application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts and circumstances that led to the filing of the current application are such that on March 20, 2014, the current FIR was filed against the present applicant and the other co-accused, alleging that Dhrangadra police officers were on patrol at the time. The police were informed at the time that Bharatbhai Malubhai Mevada was in possession of a firearm without a licence and that the current applicant had given him the firearm in question.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The learned attorney representing the applicant claims that since the co accused was ordered to be released on parole with police protection at the time of the incident, the co accused could not have received any weapons from the co accused as claimed in the FIR. The accusations made against the current Applicant in the FIR are highly improbable. He also made reference to the Criminal Order handed down by  Court, which directed that the Applicant be expanded on temporary bail for a period of seven days while being monitored by the police. Additionally, he claimed that the relevant Trial Court had cleared the co-accused from whom the illegal firearm was allegedly recovered. As a result, he offered to approve the current application.

According to the role assigned to the current applicant, he had given the accused, Bharatbhai Malubhai Mevada, the aforementioned firearm. After reading the questioned FIR, it appears that the applicant has only been charged with the current offence based on the testimony of the aforementioned Bharatbhai Malubhai Mevada, from whom the weapon was found. The record also shows that the applicant was expanded on temporary bail with police accompaniment for a period of seven days pursuant to an order dated 23.9.2013; as a result, at the time of the incident, the applicant was free on bail with police accompaniment.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgme

 

 

TITLE  – Nareshkumar Mangaji Khant Versus State of Gujarat  

Decided On-: August 25, 2023

14 of 2016 

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. M.R Mengdey

INTRODUCTION-  

The Appellant in this case was found guilty of the crime punishable by Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860, and was given a life sentence with a fine of Rs. 1000/- under the terms of Sections 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The deceased Komal was married to the current Appellant for one year prior to the incident, according to the facts and circumstances that led to the filing of the current Appeal. The deceased Komal had visited her parents’ home a week before the incident to carry out some post-marriage rituals. The appellant had visited the deceased’s deceased parents’ home a few days prior to the incident. On that fateful day, deceased Komal went to Prithvisinh Bhavansinh’s well in the afternoon to wash the clothes. The current Appellant was with her at all times. After washing the clothes for a while and not returning, Taraben, the deceased’s mother, went to the location where she had gone. She also observed Komal, her daughter, lying lifeless near the scene of the incident. Her family had been told about the incident by her.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

knowledgeable Counsel for the Appellant. In the present case, had argued, the prosecution’s case was founded on circumstantial evidence, and under established legal precedent, the prosecution is required to prove the entire series of events that led to the accused’s guilt. In this instance, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove this chain of events against the current Appellant. He further argued that the learned Sessions Judge heavily relied on the first informant’s deposition, Taraben Somaji Khat, who also happened to be the deceased’s mother, in order to convict the current Appellant.

It is abundantly clear from the evidence the prosecution has presented that the deceased had the present Appellant with her when she went to wash the clothes. According to the information in the record, the deceased was with the current Appellant when she passed away. Given these facts, it was the current appellant’s responsibility to provide an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the deceased’s death. The current Appellant is not providing any such justification for this aspect.

Due to the disintegration of the deceased’s blood sample, FSL was unable to determine the blood group of the deceased. However, blood from the AB Group was discovered on the deceased’s clothing, and it was also discovered in soil that was taken from the scene of the incident. Consequently, there is evidence to support the theory that the deceased had the blood type AB.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgment

 

 

 

Title – Pappu Versus  State of Gujarat and Others

Decided On-: August 22, 2023

4695 of 2014

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. M.R Mengdey

INTRODUCTION-  

The original accused has asked to have the FIR for the offences punishable under Section 25(1)(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act quashed and set aside by filing the current application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts and circumstances that led to the filing of the current application are such that on March 20, 2014, the current FIR was filed against the present applicant and the other co-accused, alleging that Dhrangadra police officers were on patrol at the time. The police were informed at the time that Bharatbhai Malubhai Mevada was in possession of a firearm without a licence and that the current applicant had given him the firearm in question.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The learned attorney representing the applicant claims that since the co accused was ordered to be released on parole with police protection at the time of the incident, the co accused could not have received any weapons from the co accused as claimed in the FIR. The accusations made against the current Applicant in the FIR are highly improbable. He also made reference to the Criminal Order handed down by  Court, which directed that the Applicant be expanded on temporary bail for a period of seven days while being monitored by the police. Additionally, he claimed that the relevant Trial Court had cleared the co-accused from whom the illegal firearm was allegedly recovered. As a result, he offered to approve the current application.

According to the role assigned to the current applicant, he had given the accused, Bharatbhai Malubhai Mevada, the aforementioned firearm. After reading the questioned FIR, it appears that the applicant has only been charged with the current offence based on the testimony of the aforementioned Bharatbhai Malubhai Mevada, from whom the weapon was found. The record also shows that the applicant was expanded on temporary bail with police accompaniment for a period of seven days pursuant to an order dated 23.9.2013; as a result, at the time of the incident, the applicant was free on bail with police accompaniment.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

 

Click here to view judgment–