Gujarat High Court
CR.A/1110/2000 of HANSABEN WIFE OF RAMANBHAI SHRIMALI Vs RAMANBHAI RAMABHAI SONARA on 27 December 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1110 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Issues
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1110 of 2000
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
=========================================================1[Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed ]to see the judgment ?1[Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed ]to see the judgment ?
2To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3[Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy ]of the judgment ?of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the of law as to the interpretation of the 4constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5[Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ]??
=========================================================HANSABEN WIFE OF RAMANBHAI SHRIMALI - AppellantVersus RAMANBHAI RAMABHAI SONARA & 5 – Respondents =========================================================
Appearance :MR DM AHUJAfor Appellant : 1,MR VM PANCHOLI for Respondents : 1,3 - 5.NOTICE SERVED for Respondent : 2,MR MA PATEL ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent : 6,=========================================================
CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date : 28/12/2006
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant original complainant has filed this appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of this appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of CR.A/1110/20002/3JUDGMENT
Criminal Procedure challenging the order of acquittal dated 28.3.2000 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 19, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 1434 of 1995 acquitting the respondents of charges of offences punishable under Sections 323, 294-B, 448 read with Section 114 of the IPC and under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.
2. Shri Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in fact the compromise has arrived at between the parties and in view of that compromise, Criminal Appeal No. 933 of 1999 filed by the State against the the respondents – original accused is dismissed. and in view of that compromise, Criminal Appeal No. 933 of 1999 filed by the State against the the respondents – original accused is dismissed.
3. Shri Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Pancholi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents made statement before this Court that except offence under Section 294, all other offences are compoundable and some of them are compoundable with the consent of the Court and the parties have arrived at amicable settlement for compounding the offences and they have reduced the said compromise into writing. The compromise arrived at between the parties is placed on the record of this Court. Learned counsels have countersigned the said compromise and some of the parties are present before this Court. This matter was listed in the Board on 27.12.2006 and as the compromise was being arrived at between the parties, it was treated as part heard and CR.A/1110/2000
today, it is taken up for final disposal.
4. In light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the order of acquittal deserves to be viewed.the parties, the order of acquittal deserves to be viewed.
5. This Court has perused the records and proceedings and as it appears from the judgment of the trial Court, no infirmity can be said to have been committed by the trial Court, so as to result into miscarriage of justice. proceedings and as it appears from the judgment of the trial Court, no infirmity can be said to have been committed by the trial Court, so as to result into miscarriage of justice.
6. In view of this, this acquittal appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.)
pallav