Kalpesh Bhupendrabhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat & on 2 August, 2017

R/CR.MA/18896/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO.18896 of 2017

KALPESH BHUPENDRABHAI SOLANKI….Applicant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondents

Appearance :
MANMEETSINGH P CHHABRA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant.
MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent No.1.
MR GAURAV GOHEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

Date : 02/08/2017
ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties. Learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Gohel states that
he has an instructions to appear for the respondent No.2 –
complainant. He is permitted to file his appearance forthwith.

2. Rule. Learned 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”), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside
F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I – 63 of 2017 registered with Gomtipur

Page 1 of 4

HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Thu Aug 03 01:30:22 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/18896/2017 ORDER

Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad for the commission of offence
punishable under
Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act as well as quash all
other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR
qua the applicant.

READ  Babulal-vs-State on 11 January, 2007

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 – Hansaben Laljibhai Vaghela
dated 29.7.2017. Affidavits of prosecutrix, father of the prosecutrix

Page 2 of 4

HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Thu Aug 03 01:30:22 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/18896/2017 ORDER

READ  2 Chhagan S/O Punjaba Jadhav-vs-The State Of Maharashtra on 30 June, 2011

and wife of the applicant are also placed on record which also show
that dispute is resolved between the parties. 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.

READ  Centre For Enquiry Into Health And ... vs Union Of India & Others on 10 September, 2003

9. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the
impugned F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I – 63 of 2017 registered with
Gomtipur Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad filed against the
present applicant is hereby quashed and set aside qua the

Page 3 of 4

HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Thu Aug 03 01:30:22 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/18896/2017 ORDER

applicant. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the
aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside qua the applicant.
Accordingly, Rule is made absolute.

Direct service is permitted.

(A.J.DESAI, J.)

Savariya

Page 4 of 4

HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Thu Aug 03 01:30:22 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

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