Gaurav Anandbhai Gumane Through … vs State Of Gujarat & on 23 August, 2017

R/CR.MA/20515/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO.20515 of 2017

GAURAV ANANDBHAI GUMANE THROUGH SUSHILABEN ANANDBHAI
GUMARE….Applicant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondents

Appearance :
MR VIRAT G POPAT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant.
MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent No.1.

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

Date : 23/08/2017
ORAL ORDER

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

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

Page 1 of 4

HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Fri Aug 25 01:31:23 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/20515/2017 ORDER

Code”), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside
F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I – 100 of 2016 registered with
Sardarnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad for the commission of
offence punishable under Sections 354 (A), 376 and 506 (2) of the
Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the Protection
of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2003 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 as they have decided
that the applicant will marry the prosecutrix when she attains the
age of majority. 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

Page 2 of 4

HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Fri Aug 25 01:31:23 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/20515/2017 ORDER

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 – Kailashben Rathod W/o.
Harishbhai Rathod dated 14.8.2017. Respondent No.2 as well as
prosecutrix are present in person before the Court and are
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 as they have decided that the applicant will marry the
prosecutrix when she attains the age of majority 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

Page 3 of 4

HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Fri Aug 25 01:31:23 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/20515/2017 ORDER

impugned F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I – 100 of 2016 registered
with Sardarnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad is hereby
quashed and set aside qua the 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.

It is reported that the applicant is in Judicial custody.
Hence, since the FIR is quashed, the Jail Authority is hereby
directed to release the applicant forthwith.

Direct service is permitted.

(A.J.DESAI, J.)

Savariya

Page 4 of 4

HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Fri Aug 25 01:31:23 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

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