both cases are different . merely because  some similar  reliefs claimed in DV case is no ground .

What is the stage of 498A case.  If charge is not framed then file a discharge application on the basis of the evidence given.  If your application is rejected then approach the high court.

how one can give evidences while applying for discharge? COurt is not suppose to appreciate any evidences while quosh / discharge.

hI i got one judgement on goole plz check.

498A quashed, same complaint in DV

Posted by MyNation 1 comments

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 1005 of 2011

SHARDABEN BHIMJIBHAI KALANI & 6 – Applicant(s)
Versus
KUNTAL KALPESHKUMAR KALANI & 1 – Respondent(s)

Appearance :
MR SP KOTIA for Applicant(s) : 1 – 7. None for Respondent(s) : 1,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 2,

CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE

Date : 04/02/2011

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate for the petitioners.

It is submitted that earlier Criminal Complaint No.936 of 2009 filed under Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the husband and father-in-law and mother-in-law came to be withdrawn as per the order dated 03.05.2010. So far as offence registered under Section 498A, 504, 506(2), 497, 114, 323 of the IPC and Sections 3, 7 and 10 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The said FIR came to be quashed and set aside Nos. 3 to 5 of the said application in Criminal Misc. Application No.13244 of 2010 vide earlier judgment dated 20.12.2010. However, they are again joined as respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 in the impugned complaint. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.2, 3, 7 and 8 being elder brother-in-law and sister-in-law and uncle and aunt-in-laws. The above attempt of initiating proceedings by the complainant is nothing but an abuse of process of law and is being undertaken with ulterior motive to see that all in-laws are being harassed. It is, therefore, submitted that keeping in view the decision of the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[1992 SC 604], this compliant deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Having heard learned advocate for the petitioners and on perusal of complaint No.936 of 2009, order passed therein on 03.05.2010, oral judgment dated 20.12.2008 in Criminal Misc. Application No.13244 of 2007 and impugned complaint No.878/2010, prima facie, I am of the opinion that action of respondent No2 deserves closer look at the stage of final hearing.

Hence, Rule.

Ad-interim relief in terms of para 25-B till final disposal of this petition.

Notice as to interim relief returnable on 7^th March, 2011.

Direct service is permitted.

you can go for the quashing but what is the stage of your case..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 1005 of 2011

SHARDABEN BHIMJIBHAI KALANI & 6 – Applicant(s)
Versus
KUNTAL KALPESHKUMAR KALANI & 1 – Respondent(s)

Appearance :
MR SP KOTIA for Applicant(s) : 1 – 7. None for Respondent(s) : 1,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 2,

CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE

Date : 04/02/2011

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate for the petitioners.

It is submitted that earlier Criminal Complaint No.936 of 2009 filed under Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the husband and father-in-law and mother-in-law came to be withdrawn as per the order dated 03.05.2010. So far as offence registered under Section 498A, 504, 506(2), 497, 114, 323 of the IPC and Sections 3, 7 and 10 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The said FIR came to be quashed and set aside Nos. 3 to 5 of the said application in Criminal Misc. Application No.13244 of 2010 vide earlier judgment dated 20.12.2010. However, they are again joined as respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 in the impugned complaint. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.2, 3, 7 and 8 being elder brother-in-law and sister-in-law and uncle and aunt-in-laws. The above attempt of initiating proceedings by the complainant is nothing but an abuse of process of law and is being undertaken with ulterior motive to see that all in-laws are being harassed. It is, therefore, submitted that keeping in view the decision of the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[1992 SC 604], this compliant deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Having heard learned advocate for the petitioners and on perusal of complaint No.936 of 2009, order passed therein on 03.05.2010, oral judgment dated 20.12.2008 in Criminal Misc. Application No.13244 of 2007 and impugned complaint No.878/2010, prima facie, I am of the opinion that action of respondent No2 deserves closer look at the stage of final hearing.

Hence, Rule.

Ad-interim relief in terms of para 25-B till final disposal of this petition.

Notice as to interim relief returnable on 7^th March, 2011.

Direct service is permitted.

Unfortunately the same would need to be fought.

send ur details and call me 09448035651