1.0 Present Special Criminal Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner original complainant to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC, Gandhinagar dated 3.7.2007 passed in complaint being Inquiry Case No.65 of 2007, in dismissing the said complaint filed by the petitioner herein against respondents no.2, for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
2.0 Today, when present application is taken up for final hearing, Shri R.C. Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present Special Criminal Application with a liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint, as the said order is appealable. However, as requested that there might be delay in preferring the appeal and therefore, it is requested to make suitable observation that within stipulated time that may be provided by this Court, if the appeal is preferred, in that case, the appeal be decided in accordance with law and on merits.
3.0 Shri Abhichandani, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 and Shri Dabhi, learned APP for the State have stated at the bar that they have no objections, if the suitable observations are made with respect to the delay and to decide and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and on merits, if the appeal is preferred within stipulated time that may be provided by this Court.
4.0 In view of the above, without further entering into the merits of the case and / or expressing anything on merits, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with above liberty. Considering the fact that the petitioner was before this Court by way of present petition challenging the order passed by the learned JMFC, Gandhinagar in dismissing complaint with the consent of the parties, it is observed that if the appeal is preferred within a period of four weeks from today, the same be considered in accordance with law and on merits. Now, so far as impugned order passed by the learned JMFC, Gandhinagar imposing the cost of Rs. 3000/, imposed while dismissing the complaint is concerned, Shri Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner has requested to quash and set aside the same by submitting that in view of above, the petitioner is likely to face the departmental proceedings. Shri Abhichandani, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 and Shri Dabhi, learned APP for the State have stated at the bar that they have no objections, if the order passed by the learned JMFC, Gandhinagar imposing cost of Rs.3000/, imposed while dismissing the complaint is quashed and set aside and they do not invite any further reasoned order.
5.0 Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 3.7.2007 passed by the learned JMFC, Gandhinagar passed below Exh.1 in Criminal Inquiry Case No.65 of 2007 is hereby quashed and set aside so far as imposing the cost of Rs.3000/, imposed while dismissing the complaint. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent, so far as imposing the cost of Rs.3000/ by the learned JMFC, Gandhinagar is concerned and Rule is discharged so far as challenging the impugned order dated 3.7.2007 passed by the learned JMFC, Gandhinagar passed below Exh.1 in Criminal Inquiry Case No.65 of 2007 is concerned with above liberty.
kaushik sd/ (M.R.SHAH, J.)