AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.R. Shah, J.—Rule. Shri K.P. Raval, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and Shri Rushab Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of Respondent No. 2.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the present application is taken up for final hearing today.
The present application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-original accused No. 4-Mehul Yogeshbhai Vyas to quash and set aside the impugned Complaint/FIR, being C.R. No. I 13/2010, registered with Rajkot Mahila Police Station qua the present applicant.
A Complaint has been filed by Respondent No. 2-original complainant against the applicant and other three accused persons with the Rajkot Mahila Police Station, being C.R. No. I 13/2010, for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498A, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is the case on behalf of the applicant that so far as the present applicant is concerned he has not committed any offence as alleged and in fact he is residing separately since the year 2006 and he is only the younger brother of the husband of the deceased and, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the case.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court issued notice upon Respondent No. 2 and in response to the same, Shri Rushab Shah, learned advocate appears on behalf of Respondent No. 2. It is reported that Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court. Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit-in-reply submitting that in fact the name of the applicant is falsely and by mistake given and, therefore, his name has been mentioned in the impugned FIR.
In view of the above and even otherwise when the applicant, who is the younger brother of the husband of the deceased was/is residing separately since the year 2006, the present application deserves to be allowed as to continue criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with Complaint, being C.R. No. I 13/2010 would be abuse of process of law. As stated hereinabove, even Respondent No. 2-original complainant has declared before the Court on affidavit that the name of the applicant was by mistake given and, therefore, his name was mentioned in the impugned FIR.
In view of the above, this is a fit case to exercise powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the present application is allowed and the impugned Complaint, being C.R. No. I 13/2010, registered with Rajkot Mahila Police Station, is hereby quashed and set aside so far as the applicant-original accused No. 4 is concerned. Rule is made absolute accordingly.