NARENDRAKUMAR RAMDAS GOHEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Shri K.T.Dave, learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Shri Atit Thakore, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) By way of this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate order quashing and setting aside the proceedings of criminal case No. 1100 of 2007 / criminal inquiry No. 83 of 2006 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar and also to quash and set aside the order dated 4.4.2007 passed below Exh.1 passed in criminal case No. 1100 of 2007 / criminal inquiry No. 83 of 2006.

(3.) It appears from the record that the respondent No.2 herein wife has filed aforesaid criminal case / criminal inquiry in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar against the petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 498 and 114 of the I.P.C. and under section 506 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as under section 12(1) of the Protection of Woman From Domestic violence Act; 2005. After verification, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar passed an order for sending the complaint for inquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter passed an order on 4.4.2007 holding that so far as the criminal complaint for the offence under I.P.C. as well as Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the Himmatnagar Court would not have jurisdiction, however, so far as offence under section 12(1) of the Protection of Woman From Domestic violence Act; 2005 is concerned, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order to issue summons upon the petitioners for the said offence. However, it appears that when the summons were issued, summons were issued for the offence under sections 498 and 114 of the I.P.C. also. When the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar has already passed an order on 4.4.2007 holding that for the offence under I.P.C. and Dowry Prohibition Act he would not have any jurisdiction, there was no question of issuing the summons against the petitioners under the I.P.C. Under the circumstances, the summons issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar for the offence under I.P.C. requires to be quashed and set aside.