ORDER :

1. The present petition is filed for seeking following reliefs:

“a. To admit and allow this petition.

b. To quash and set aside Criminal Case No. 6338 of 2015 pending before Learned 6th Additional Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) arising out of F.I.R being I- CR No. 58 of 2015 registered with Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad, filed by the respondent No. 2 and subsequent proceedings thereto, qua the petitioner,

c. Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, to stay Criminal Case No. 6338 of 2015 pending before Learned 6th Additional Civil Judge. Ahmedabad (Rural) arising out of F.I.R being 1-CR No. 58 of 2015 registered with Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad, filed by the respondent No. 2 and subsequent proceedings;”

2.1 Brief facts of the case as per the case of the petitioner in this petition are as such that the petitioner is filing this petition Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to Criminal Case No. 6338 of 2015 pending before Learned 6th Additional Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) arising out of F.I.R being I-CR No. 58 of 2015 registered with Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad, under section 494, 495, 406, 420, 498 (A), 323 and 114 of I.P.C and section 3 and 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and subsequent proceedings thereto, qua the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition are as such that earlier the petitioner has preferred an application being SC.R.A. No. 2489 of 2015 before this Hon'ble Court for quashing of the present F.I.R and by order dated: 13/07/2016 the same came to be withdrawn by the present petitioner.

2.2 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition are as such that that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the respondent No. 2 and after the trial was started the deposition of the respondent No. 2 is taken by the trial court and if the deposition of the respondent NO. 2 is perused then no case is made out against the present petitioner as alleged in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that there is a huge contradiction between the F.I.R and the testimony given by the respondent No. 2 and hence the prayer of the petitioner may be allowed in the interest of justice.

2.3 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition are as such that if the deposition of the respondent NO. 2 is perused then it is not coming out that the petitioner was ever reside with the respondent No. 2 or given any mental or physical torture to the respondent No. 2 on the contrary it is coming out that the petitioner was residing at U.S.A after and before the marriage of the respondent No. 2 with the son of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is wrongly and falsely implicated in the present case and therefore the prayer of the petitioner may be allowed in the interest of justice. Hence, this petition is preferred.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jucky Lucky Chan for the petitioner and Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the respondent – State.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Jucky Lucky Chan for the petitioner has fairly submitted before arguing the matter that now, the trial is proceeded in the matter and recording of evidence is concluded. However, on insistence of the person, who is briefing on behalf of petitioner, he is making further submissions in the matter.

4.2 He has drawn the attention of this Court to the examination of the original complainant and has submitted that there is material contradiction between the F.I.R. and the evidence of the complainant, which is recorded before this Court. Therefore, he has submitted that though the earlier petition i.e. Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.2489 of 2015 is withdrawn by the present petitioner vide order dated 13.7.2016, the present petition is filed in view of the change of circumstances. Therefore, he has submitted that prima facie, the case, which is narrated in the F.I.R., is with a view to harass the present p