LAWS(GJH)-2023-6-2090

CHIRAG AYUBBHAI MANSURI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On June 13, 2023
Chirag Ayubbhai Mansuri Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code' for short) for the following reliefs:

(2.) The brief facts as stated in the application are such that the applicant no.1 and the respondent no.2 got married as per Muslim Rites and Customs on 1/5/2013, they prepared Talaknama on 6/6/2013, thereafter, after the requisite waiting period as per the Muslim laws was over, the applicant no.1 got married with another lady on 4/9/2013. On 1/9/2013, the respondent no.2 lodged FIR against the applicants under various Sec. of Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act, thereafter, on 3/9/2016, the respondent no.2 filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.121 of 2016 before the learned Metropolitan Court at Ahmedabad under various provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on 4/9/2016, the respondent no.2 published in the news that the applicant no.1 and his family members have harassed the respondent no.2. It is stated that the respondent no.2 lodged another complaint on 5/9/2016 against the applicant no.1 and one another accused that they intimated the respondent no.2 stating to withdraw the complaint filed before the Mahila police station. That the applicant issued defamation notice upon the publisher and claimed damages upon the publishers against the false and fabricated article published by the respondent no.2. The applicants filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.30004 of 2016 before this Court challenging the FIR filed under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act, wherein Rule was issued and status quo was granted in favour of the applicants. This application is filed to quash and set aside the proceedings of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.121 of 2016.

(3.) Heard learned advocates for the applicant, learned APP for the respondent -state. Though served, respondent no.2 has not filed any appearance.