VINESH BHAGWAN DARIANANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cri. Misc. Application No. 3045 of 2005 is filed by the petitioners " original accused praying for quashing and setting aside the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4386 of 2004 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara.

(2.) Cri. Misc. Application No. 11456 of 2005 is filed by the applicant, namely, Ritu Vinesh Darianani, original respondent No. 2 in Cri. Misc. Application No. 3045 of 2005 for vacating the interim relief granted by this Court on 01.04.2005 staying further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4386 of 2004 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners " original accused that they are not citizens of India and they have never resided in India and they are having citizenship of Spain for which they are holding necessary Passports. The petitioner No. 1 i.e. Vinesh Bhagwan Darianani had come to India along with petitioner No. 2, for the purpose of his marriage with the respondent No. 2. The petitioner No. 1 got married with the respondent No. 2 on 25.01.2003. It is the case of the petitioners that for the purpose of said marriage, all the expenses were borne by the petitioners and all the bills of the hotel etc. have been paid by the petitioners. It is also the case of the petitioners that after the marriage ceremony was over, the petitioner No. 1 had applied for visa for the respondent No. 2 and for that purpose, the respondent No. 2 has managed to obtain Marriage Certificate from the Registrar of Marriages, Vadodara and the same was produced before the Visa authorities and subsequently, the respondent No. 2 had left India for Spain with the petitioner No. 1 on 14.02.2003 and she was residing with the petitioner No. 1 in Spain. It is also the case of the petitioners that after the respondent No. 2 came to Spain, all necessary formalities were carried out by the petitioner No. 1 for obtaining resident permit for the respondent No. 2 and the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was also registered as per the local laws of Spain before the authority for registration of marriages. A separate Agreement was also executed by the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 as per the local laws of Spain.