Rupaben Sanjay Punjwani vs State of Gujarat and Others

M.D. Shah, J.—The present Petitioner has lodged complaint against the present Respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code andunder Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Act. The presentPetitioner has not placed on record the copy of complaint.

This Court has gone through the complaint as well ascopy of chargesheet provided by learned advocate for theRespondent, the same is ordered to be taken on record.Prima facie it is found that the chargesheet is filed for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 114 ofIndian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of Dowry Act,but nothing is reflected in the complaint to show that thecomplaint is also filed for offence punishable underSections 406, 420, 467 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code.It is pertinent to note that, in pursuance of the orderpassed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 11510of 2010 dated 28.9.2010 the trial is required to becompleted within one month by the trial court.

In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, chargewas framed, and before framing of the charge, noapplication for further investigation nor adding of thecharge is given by the complainant or by the prosecutor.After framing of the charge and when the trial hascommenced, application for adding of charge Exh.13 has beensubmitted by the learned advocate for the complainant. ThisCourt has gone through the said application. Prima facie,in the opinion of this Court, if the alleged offence ismade out in reference to tampering of passport and visathen the Petitioner should lodge complaint for the saidoffences. The question does not arise to add the charge in the said case for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code. In the opinion of thisCourt, the said application is rightly rejected by thetrial court and therefore the question does not arise tointerfere with the said order and hence this application isrejected.

It is also submitted by learned advocate Mr. Anandjiwalafor the Respondent that visa was cancelled by the competentauthority at Sharjah as visa was issued in the capacity ofspouse in the favour of the Petitioner and the presentRespondent has not played any role for cancellation of visaand competent authority at Sharjah has cancelled the visa.

It is also clarified that, during the trial, if thecourt satisfies and think fit then the court can add thecharge at any stage before completion of the trial. Thetrial court is directed to decide and dispose of the case,as early as possible, preferably within one month from thedate of receipt of writ of this order. It is also submittedby the learned advocate for the both the parties that they will give full cooperation for conducting the trial will give full cooperation for conducting the trial smoothly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent.Direct service is permitted.