Gujarat High Court
SCR.A/1104/1999 of ARTIBEN PRAMODKUMAR SONI WIFE OF CHIRAG PRAFULBHAI SONI Vs POLICE INSPECTOR on 30 November 2000
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No 1104 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No 1104 of 1999
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- ARTIBEN PRAMODKUMAR SONI WIFE OF CHIRAG PRAFULBHAI SONIVersus POLICE INSPECTOR -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR YV BRAHMBHATT for Petitioners MS HANSA B PUNANI, APP, for Respondent No. 1 to 3 None present for Respondent No. 4
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
Date of decision: 30/11/2000
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P., it seems to be a case where the petitioners have married against the wish and will of respondent No.4, father of the girl. From the documents which have come on the record, I find that both the petitioners were of more than 21 years of age. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that both the petitioners are peacefully living together as husband and wife, presently at Pune, and out of this marriage, they got a child also. He says that more than one year has passed and now possibly the police may not harass them, and he prays for withdrawal of this special criminal application at this stage with liberty to revive the same in case of any difficulty.
This special criminal application is dismissed as withdrawn. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted stands vacated. No order as to costs. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners for revival of this special criminal application in case of difficulty.
**********
zgs/-