LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

bail498 (Junior Advocate)     22 December 2011

Need suggestions onstay order/quashing of dv as 498a applied

Dear All,

In my DV case she had admitted false MLC making injury herself,admitted to hospital herself.In FIR IPC mentioned are 498a,323,114,506,504 & BP act sec 135. Crpc 125 & Child custody cases are running in Family court same juridiction that is for DV. Now,according to my knowledge DV is naturewise Civil law,498a is crime. So,to prove the false MLC and other details 498a should run.Untill that 498a is running can we get stay/quashing order on DV?



Learning

 1 Replies

Advocate Rajkumarlaxman (Advocacy)     14 January 2012

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of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the husband and father-in-law and mother-in-law came to be withdrawn as per the order dated 03.05.2010.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.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register