Mukul Pradipbhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat & on 14 July, 2017

R/CR.MA/17248/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 17248 of 2017

MUKUL PRADIPBHAI RATHOD….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR YASH NANAVATY, LD.ADVOCATE FOR MR NIKUNJ V JOSHI,
ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RAKESH PATEL, LD.ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

Date : 14/07/2017

ORAL ORDER

1. Mr.Kaival Patel, learned advocate states that he
has instruction to appear on behalf of respondent No.2-
original complainant and shall file his appearance at the
earliest. He has identified the original complainant and
prosecutrix, who are present in the Court and have filed
Affidavit stating that the matter is settled between the parties,
which are taken on the record of the case.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates
appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the matter is
taken up for final hearing today.

3. Rule. Mr.Rakesh Patel, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf respondent No.1 –

Page 1 of 4

HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Jul 15 00:05:56 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/17248/2017 ORDER

State of Gujarat. Mr.Patel, learned advocate waives service of
Rule on behalf of respondent No.2 – original complainant.

4. By way of the present application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has
prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.I- 62 of
2017 along with all the subsequent proceedings arose from
the said FIR, lodged with Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot,
for the offence punishable under
Sections 376, 363, 366, etc.
of
the Indian Penal Code.

READ  Captain Ajit Singh vs State on 9 May, 2017

5. Mr.Yash Nanavaty, learned advocate appearing for
the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the
Honble Apex Court in case of Gian Singh versus State of
Punjab Anr. reported in 2012(10)SCC 303 as well as in the
case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi Ors. V/s. Babita Raghuvanshi
Anr. reported in [2013(3)] 54 (3) G.L.R 1875 and submitted that
since the matter is settled and all the grievance raised in the
FIR do not exist, there is no need to proceed further with the
trial with regard to the FIR.

6. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent No.2 – original complainant states that he has
identified the complainant and prosecutrix, who are present in
the court and have filed Affidavits of original complainant and
prosecutrix stating that the matter is amicably settled
between the parties and the complainant as well as
prosecutrix have no objection if the impugned FIR and all the
proceedings arose from the said FIR, is quashed and set aside.

7. Mr.Rakesh Patel, learned Additional Public

Page 2 of 4

HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Jul 15 00:05:56 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/17248/2017 ORDER

Prosecutor appearing for respondent- State would submit that
though the compromise has been arrived at between the
parties, the impugned FIR may not be quashed and this
petition may be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned advocates appearing on
behalf of the respective parties. I have perused the Affidavits
filed by the complainant as well as prosecutrix, in which, it is
specifically stated that the matter is settled between the
parties and the complainant as well as prosecutrix have no
objection, if the impugned FIR is quashed.

READ  U.P. Judicial Services ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Chief Secy. ... on 4 July, 2017

9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of
the case, the present application is allowed. The FIR being
C.R.No.I- 62 of 2017 along with all the subsequent
proceedings arose from the said FIR, lodged with Gandhigram
Police Station, Rajkot, for the offence punishable under
Sections 376, 363, 366, etc. of the Indian Penal Code, are
hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant.

10. In view of the fact that the matter is settled and the
impugned FIR has been quashed by this Court by passing the
aforesaid order, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit
case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant
herein – Mukul Pradipbhai Rathod on regular bail. Hence,
the applicant herein – Mukul Pradipbhai Rathod is
ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with an
offence being C.R.No.I- 62 of 2017 registered with
Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot, on executing a
personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousands only)
with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the

Page 3 of 4

HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Jul 15 00:05:56 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/17248/2017 ORDER

learned Trial Court.

11. The Authorities will release the applicant only if he
is not required in connection with any other offence for the
time being. Bail bond to be executed before the learned Lower
Court having jurisdiction to try the case. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted today.

[A.J.DESAI,J.]

*dipti

Page 4 of 4

HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Jul 15 00:05:56 IST 2017

READ  Joginder Chaudhary & Ors vs The State & Anr on 4 August, 2014

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *