Amit Avinashbhai Tamhankar & vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 August, 2017

R/SCR.A/781/2016 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO.781 of 2016

AMIT AVINASHBHAI TAMHANKAR 1….Applicants
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondents

Appearance :
MR P P MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Applicants.
MR HARNISH V DARJI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No.2.
MR RAKESH PATEL, APP for the Respondent No.1.

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

Date : 04/08/2017
ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties.

2. 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 applicants and respondent No.2 has been
resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal
forthwith.

3. By way of this application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Code”), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside
F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I – 2 of 2016 registered with Mahila
Police Station, Dist. Vadodara for the commission of offence
punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code read with
Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act as well as quash all other consequential
proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicants.

Page 1 of 4

HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Aug 05 02:31:33 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/781/2016 ORDER

4. Learned advocate for the applicants 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
applicants. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an
affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute
between the applicants 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.

READ  Devi Ram vs State Of Haryana on 17 January, 2002

5. 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.

6. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated
the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants.
The learned advocate for respondent No.2 also relied upon the
affidavit filed by respondent No.2 – Shruti Amit Tamhankar dated
22.7.2017. 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 applicants and the
respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons
of the society and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It

Page 2 of 4

HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Aug 05 02:31:33 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/781/2016 ORDER

is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed.

7. Having heard 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 applicants would be
unnecessary harassment to the applicants. 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  Shabreen Taj Sayeda Suriya ... vs State Of Karnataka on 18 August, 2017

8. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the
impugned FIR bearing C.R. No. I – 2 of 2016 registered with
Mahila Police Station, Dist. Vadodara filed against the present
applicants is hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants.
Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR
are also quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Rule is made
absolute.

Direct service is permitted.

(A.J.DESAI, J.)

Page 3 of 4

HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Aug 05 02:31:33 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/781/2016 ORDER

Savariya

Page 4 of 4

HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Aug 05 02:31:33 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

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