CR.RA/23819/1999 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 238 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 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 ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= SHASHIKALA AMBALAL PATEL - Applicant(s) Versus VISHNUKUMAR TRIBHOVANDAS PATEL & 7 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR NIRZAR S DESAI for Applicant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 7. MR DA BAMBHANIA for Respondent(s) : 7, MR HL JANI, LD.ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 8, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date : 01/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri Nirzar S. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the applicant; Shri D.A. Bambhania, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 7 and Shri H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent no.8- State. CR.RA/23819/1999 2/5 JUDGMENT 2. The applicant is the orig.complainant of Criminal Case No.164 of 1995 decided by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 09th January 1989. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate decided to discharge the respondent nos.1 to 7-orig.accused on the ground of inadequacy of evidence as to the second marriage of respondent no.1-Vishnukumar Tribhovandas Patel. Shri Nirzar Desai has taken this Court through the nature of evidence recorded and the order under challenge. 3. I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri H.L. Jani and Shri D.A. Bambhania, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 7. Respondent nos.2 to 7 have been joined as they are the close relatives of respondent no.1. It is claimed by the complainant that respondent no.1 is her husband. In response to the query raised by the Court, Shri Desai submitted that the parties initially had attempted to see that the matter is settled out of the Court. On CR.RA/23819/1999 3/5 JUDGMENT reading of the order under challenge, Shri H.L. Jani submitted that the order discharging the accused is a legal order and no error can be said to have been committed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 4. According to Shri Bambhania, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 7, the adequacy of the evidence only would lead a case to the stage of framing of charge. The applicant was supposed to lead a cogent and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that the case against accused persons is required to be tried by framing formal charge. How a warrant case is to be tried, is reflected in the relevant provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and when the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was satisfied that there is no adequate evidence to frame the charge, he decided to discharge the orig.accused. 5. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of case narrated in the CR.RA/23819/1999 4/5 JUDGMENT complaint, evidence led by the prosecution and the order under challenge in this Revision Application recorded by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Application as there is no patent illegality or perversity in the finding and it is rightly held that there is no adequate evidence to frame the charge. 6. In view of aforesaid observations and discussion, the present Revision Application is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 16th January 1999 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.164 of 1995, is hereby confirmed. Rule is discharged. 7. It is, however, observed that dismissal of present Revision Application shall have no bearing on any other proceedings, if any, initiated by the applicant against the accused as his legally wedded wife. (C.K. Buch, J) CR.RA/23819/1999 5/5 JUDGMENT Aakar