The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 limits interference to prevent miscarriage of justice without re-evaluating evidence.

ORDER :

J. C. Doshi, J.

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Code”), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order passed below Exh. 14 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 20 of 2025 pending before learned JMFC Barwada and order dated 10.6.2016 passed by learned 8^th (Adhoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad rural at Mirapur in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2016 in petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 , (for short “ the Act”) and all the consequential proceedings arising from the said petition qua the petitioners herein.

1.1 Exactly following reliefs are prayed :

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of dated 13/01/2016 passed below Ex-14 in Misc. Criminal App. No-20/2015 by the Ld JMFC, Barwada and order dated-10/06/2016 passed by the Ld. 8th (Ad hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad rural at Mirzapur in Criminal Appeal No. 12/2016 and after perusing the same further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 13/01/2016 and 10/06/2016 in the interest of justice,

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the proceedings of Misc. Criminal App. No. 20/2015 pending before the Ld. JMFC, Barwada pending admission and/or final disposal of the present petition in the interest of justice;

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further relief as are deemed fit in the interest of justice;”

2. Brief facts are as under :-

2.1 Samaben Firozali Gabhrani married to Mr. Firozali Arifali Gabhrani on 1.8.2004 as per muslim rituals and customs and started living in her matrimonial home. They were living in a joint family. Their marriage ended after the birth of two daughters Rojmin and Zahera. According to the original petitioner and respondent herein initially she was kept in good behaviour and no physical or mental abuse was passed on her. However, later on her husband and her in-laws were the petitioner herein started hurling verbal spat and also physically and mentally abusing the private respondent Samaben and later on she was forced to leave her matrimonial home.

2.2 The respondent claimed that she was severely beaten by the petitioner and her husband and thereafter she left the matrimonial home.

2.3 Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner under Sections 12,18,19, 20 (1) (d),22, 23 (1) (2) of the D.V Act, against her husband as well as in-laws. Amongst them Mr. Firozali was her husband. Mr. Arifali and Ms.Taheraben were her in-laws amongst them and others were the uncles of the husband and grand mother-in law.

2.4 An Application at Exh. 14 was preferred in a proceeding of Criminal Misc. Application to delete the name of the petitioner as they are not necessary party and no allegations of domestic violence are leveled against them. This application was heard and rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barwala.

2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed below Exh. 14, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2016 under Section 29 of the Act unsuccessfully.

2.6. Hence, this petition.

3. Mr. Tirmizi learned advocate, appearing for the petitioner assailing the concurrent finding arrived at by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Barwala below Exh. 14 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 2015 and by the 8th Additional and District Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Gramiya in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2016, would submit that the petitioners are in-laws of the private respondent. They have been wrongly joined as a party opponent, in t