Noorjahan VS. State Rep. By D.S.P.

Extract

---

Noorjahan VS. State Rep. By D.S.P.

The Judgement Information System CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2003 of 2008

PETITIONER: Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel RESPONDENT: Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and others DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/2008

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & V.S. SIRPURKAR

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

CIVIL APPEAL NO 2003 OF 2008

[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1061 of 2007]

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 502 OF 2008

[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 213 of 2007]

Ajitbhai Revandas Patel and another ... Appellant Versus State of Gujarat and another ... Respondents S.B. SINHA, J : 1. Leave granted in both the matters.

2. These two appeals being inter related were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by the common judgment.

3. Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel (Appellant in Civil Appeal is the mother in law of Sonalben Rameshchandra Desai - respondent No.3 in Civil Appeal and respondent No.2 in Criminal Appeal) while she alongwith her husband are the appellants in the Criminal Appeal. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel is being described as Appellant No.1 while her husband Ajitbhai Revandas Patel is being described as Appellant No.2.

4. Sonalben Rameshchandra Desai was married to Jitendra Ajitbhai Patel (son of the appellants) on 4th May, 1992. The couple fell apart. In 1993 a complaint petition was filed by the 3rd respondent against her husband and the appellants alleging commission of an offence under Sections 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said complaint the 3rd respondent accepted that her husband had incurred huge losses in the business in United States were granted bail subject to the condition that they would not leave India without prior permission of the Court. Allegedly on the premise that Appellant No.2 requires medical treatment, an application for permission was filed in October 1997 but they left India without obtaining the same from the Court.

5. An application was filed for cancellation of the bail which was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate as also by the Sessions Judge. The 3rd respondent filed an application before the High Cour...

See the full content of this document

---