Devarshi Rajendra Shukla & 3 vs State Of Gujarat & on 8 September, 2017

R/SCR.A/6714/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6714 of 2017
(QUASHING)

DEVARSHI RAJENDRA SHUKLA 3….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR ANUJ K TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 4
MR SACHIN D VASAVADA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 4
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
TANAYA G SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MEGHA JANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

Date : 08/09/2017

ORAL ORDER

1. Draft amendment is allowed and to be carried out
accordingly.

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

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 applicants 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 applicants have prayed for quashing and setting
aside F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I – 17 of 2016 registered

Page 1 of 5

HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Sat Sep 09 23:32:55 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/6714/2017 ORDER

with Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad for the
commission of offence punishable under
Sections 498(A),
406, 420 and 114 etc. of the Indian Penal Code as well as
quash all other consequential proceedings arising out of the
aforesaid FIR i.e. charge sheet No. 50 of 2016 and Criminal
Case No. 254 of 2016 etc. qua the applicants.

5. 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. 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.

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 – Ms. Rashmi Shrestha

Page 2 of 5

HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Sat Sep 09 23:32:55 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/6714/2017 ORDER

dated 31.08.2017. 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 and
therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore
submitted that the present application may be allowed.

8. Affidavit filed by respondent No.2 – Ms. Rashmi Shrestha
dated 31.08.2017 read as under:

“I, Rashmi Shreshta, aged 32 years, residing at Ahmedabad, do
hereby on solemn affirmation state as under:

1. I state that I am the complainant – respondent No.2 in the
present petition. I say that I have gone through the memo of
the petition as well as the annexures supplied there with. i
say that being the complainant. I am well conversant with
the facts of the case and I am entitled, competent and
authorized to file this affidavit in reply to the captioned
petition.

2. I state that I am the complainant of FIR No. I – C.R. No 17 /
2016 dated 17.04.2016, registered with Mahila Police
Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A,
406, 420 and 114 of IPC against the petitioners.

3. I state that on 11.04.2011, the petitioner No. 1 and myself
were married in Ahmedabad. Subsequently, various
differences and disputes have arisen between the petitioner
No. 1 and myself. I have also filed a petition seeking a decree
of divorce before the Hon’ble Family Court, Ahmedabad
being Family Suit No. 1326 of 2015, which is pending as of
date. I state that keeping in mind our best interest as well as
to avoid prolonged litigation and my desire to shift to USA
upon grant of divorce and considering the I do no have
relatives in India, the petitioner No. 1 and 2 and myself have
arrived at an amicable settlement. The said settlement has
been recorded in the Memorandum of Understanding /
Consent Terms dated 31.08.2017. The same have also been
placed on record in other proceedings between the parties.
Annexed here at Annexure – 1 is the copy of the said
Memorandum of Understanding / Consent Terms dated
31.08.2017.

4. Subsequent to the filing of the aforesaid complaint, the
petitioner No.1, who is my husband and myself have
amicably resolved our disputes and I no longer have any

Page 3 of 5

HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Sat Sep 09 23:32:55 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/6714/2017 ORDER

disputes with any petitioners and their family members. In
view of the said, on account of the settlement arrived at, I do
not have any grievances or differences with the petitioners.

5. In view of the settlement, I the complainant of I – C.R.No.

17/2016 registered with the Mahila Police Station, hereby
state that I do no intend to prosecute the present petitioners
in connection with the above FIR, in view of the settlement
having been arrived at between the parties. In light of the
above, the Hon’ble Court is humbly requested to pass
appropriate orders in quashing the said FIR, Charge-Sheet,
Criminal Case and all criminal proceedings against the
petitioners.”

9. 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.

10. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR
bearing C.R. No. I – 17 of 2016 registered with Mahila
Police Station, Ahmedabad filed against the present
applicants is hereby quashed and set aside qua the

Page 4 of 5

HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Sat Sep 09 23:32:55 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/6714/2017 ORDER

applicants. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of
the aforesaid FIR i.e. charge sheet No. 50 of 2016 and
Criminal Case No. 254 of 2016 etc. are also quashed and set
aside qua the applicants.

11. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(A.J.DESAI, J.)
*Kazi…

Page 5 of 5

HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Sat Sep 09 23:32:55 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

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