CR.MA/1073/1994 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 1073 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No ========================================================= DHIRUBHAI SHAMBHUPBHAI BHANDAR & 7 - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR KJ SHETHNA for Applicant(s) : 1 - 8. Mr. R.C.Kodekar, A.P.P for Respondent(s) : 1, SHRIKAR H BHATT for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 26/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This petition U/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. was pressed now, after 14 years of its pendency, on the basis that original complainant was no longer inclined to pursue the matter and infact the CR.MA/1073/1994 2/3 JUDGMENT investigating agency had already filed investigation report in the form of “A Summary” before the trial court, in spite of stay of further proceedings granted by this Court on 16.03.1994. 2. In view of the factual situation emerging from the submission of learned counsel, by order dated 11.11.2008, the original complainant was directed to be informed to remain personally present in the Court particularly because the complainant was found to have been unable to pursue the proceedings. There is no dispute or doubt about the fact that all the original accused persons were practicing advocates and the original complainant had made written application to withdraw the complaint of serious offences under duress. However, upon the original complainant appearing before the Court with the assistance of legal aid provided by the Court in the form of learned counsel Mr. Virat Popat, it was stated by the petitioner, the original complainant, and also learned A.P.P that the petition is required to be allowed since now no purpose would be served by prosecuting the petitioners and there was no chance of the prosecution ending into conviction of anyone in view of the subsequent developments including filing of the investigation report and orders made thereon by the criminal court in clear contempt and defiance of the interim CR.MA/1073/1994 3/3 JUDGMENT relief granted by this Court. 3. In this unfortunate state of affairs, there is no course left open before the Court except allowing the petition with the above observations. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned complaint registered as F.I.R No. II-193/93 at annexure-A is quashed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. A copy of this judgement shall be served upon the Bar Council of Gujarat for appropriate notice and action as may be deemed proper. Sd/- (D.H.WAGHELA,J.) Jyoti