R/SCR.A/2429/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2429 of 2014

With

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2430 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

==========================================================

1

Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed

to see the judgment ?

YES

2

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

YES

3

Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

of the judgment ?

NO

4

Whether this case involves a substantial question

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution

of India or any order made thereunder ?

NO

==========================================================

JAYANTIBEN KESHAV FURGO

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MR MEHULSHARAD SHAH(773) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MR. H.K. PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

Date : 09/08/2021

COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

1.

Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Mehulsharad Shah waives service

Page 1 of 25

R/SCR.A/2429/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2021

of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No.2 and learned

APP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent – State.

2.

As identical issue is involved in both these petitions, on a

joint request made by learned advocates for the respective parties

as well as learned APP, these petitions are disposed of by passing a

common order.

3.

Short facts emerged from the petitions arise as under. For the

sake of convenience, Special Criminal Application No.2429/2014 is

treated as lead matter.

3.1

“The respondent No.2, filed a complaint against the

petitioners before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar

under Section 500 of the IPC. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

Porbandar, after recording verification and statement of the

witnesses, issued process against the petitioner/accused for the

offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. Initially, the

petitioners preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.1384/2012

with Criminal Misc. Application No.1385/2012 before this Court.

But, on 08.02.2012, under the instruction of the petitioners,

learned advocate appearing for the petitioners seek permission to

withdraw both these applications with a liberty to take action in

accordance with law before the competent Court with regard to the

Page 2 of 25

R/SCR.A/2429/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2021

subject matter and therefore, permission was granted with

clarification that Court has not entered into the merits of the case

and the subject matter of the complaint will be decided by the

learned Magistrate in accordance with law. The petitioner

challenged the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Porbandar issuing process against him in connection with the

complaint filed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Criminal Case

No.1605/2011 by preferring Criminal Revision Application

No.8/2012 before the learned Sessions Judge at Porbandar.

4.

After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Porbandar by his order dismissed the revision application on

13.05.2014. Hence this petition is submitted under Article 226 of

Constitution of India as well as under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petitioner has sought following relief in

the present petition.

“7(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to call for the records and

proceedings of both the Courts below and further be pleased to

quash and set aside the impugned o