Unknown vs State Of Gujarat & on 31 July, 2017

R/CR.MA/17798/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 17798 of 2017

GAURAV OMPRAKASH JOSHI….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MS SM AHUJA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. L.B. DABHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

Date : 31/07/2017
ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties. Falguni Gaurav Joshi – Original complainant is present in
the Court and is identified by Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned advocate
state that he has instruction to appear for respondent No.2. He is
permitted to file his appearance. Her Affidavit is placed on record.

2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as
learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of
Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. Considering the issue involved in the present application and
with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the
applicant and respondent No.2 has been resolved amicably, this
application is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

4. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”),

Page 1 of 4

HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Tue Aug 01 01:49:19 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/17798/2017 ORDER

the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR
bearing I.C.R.No.277/2012 registered with Ghatlodia Police
Station, Ahmedabad for the commission of offence punishable
under Sections 498A, 114 of the IPC, Section 3 and 7 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act as well as all other consequential proceedings
arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicant.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court
through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At
the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved
the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings
pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings
arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicant. It is
submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these
proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the
applicant and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of
trusted persons of the society. It is further submitted that in view
of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and
any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse
of process of law. It is therefore submitted that this Court may
exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the
Code and allow the application as prayed for.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State
has opposed the present application and submitted that
considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint in
question may not be quashed and the present application may be
rejected.

7. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the
contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant. The
learned advocate for respondent No.2 also relied upon the affidavit
filed by respondent No.2 – Falguni Gaurav Joshi dated 24.04.2017.

Page 2 of 4

HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Tue Aug 01 01:49:19 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/17798/2017 ORDER

Respondent No.2 is present in person before the Court and is
identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2. On inquiry
made by the Court, respondent No.2 has declared before this Court
that the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.2 is
resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society and
therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore
submitted that the present application may be allowed.

8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising
out of the present application as well as taking into consideration
the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan
Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582,
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Anr.,
reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, Manoj Sharma Vs. State Ors.,
reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh Ors. Vs.
State of Punjab Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it
appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in
relation to the impugned FIR against the applicant would be
unnecessary harassment to the applicant. It appears that the trial
would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings
pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of
law and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is
required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 482 of the Code.

9. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR
bearing I.C.R.No.277/2012 registered with Ghatlodia Police
Station, Ahmedabad, filed against the present applicant is hereby
quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising
out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside qua the
applicant. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute.

Page 3 of 4

HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Tue Aug 01 01:49:19 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/17798/2017 ORDER

Direct service is permitted.

(A.J.DESAI, J.)
PALLAVI

Page 4 of 4

HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Tue Aug 01 01:49:19 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

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