Prakashbhai Manubhai Baria & 5 vs State Of Gujarat & on 20 September, 2017

R/CR.MA/8622/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 8622 of 2017

PRAKASHBHAI MANUBHAI BARIA 5….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR. ABHISHEK A JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 6
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

Date : 20/09/2017

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties. Learned advocate Mr. Sumit Chaudhary states that he
has instructions to appear for the original complainant –
respondent No.2. He is directed to file his appearance
forthwith. The complainant states that the matter is settled
between the parties.

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

Page 1 of 6

HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Sun Sep 24 19:57:53 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/8622/2017 ORDER

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 applicant has prayed for quashing and setting
aside F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I – 001 of 2017 registered
with Mahila Police Station- Modasa, District Aravalli for
the commission of offence punishable under Section 498A,
506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as quash all
other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid
FIR 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 due to intervention of trusted
persons of the society.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State has opposed the present application and submitted

Page 2 of 6

HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Sun Sep 24 19:57:53 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/8622/2017 ORDER

that considering the seriousness of the offence and considering
the injuries caused to the injured, 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 applicants. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 also
relied upon the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 –
Fransikaben @ Parulben Prakashbhai Baria. Affidavit of
complainant reads as under:-

“I, Fransikaben Alias Parulben W/o
Prakashbhai Baria and D/O Nikolashbhai

Paulbhai Kharadi, Female, Aged 22 years
Occupation: Service Resident of: Tirupati
Gokuldham Society, House no. 173, Modasa,
Dist.-Aravalli, At present residing at.
Chitadara, Taluka Meghraj, Dist. Aravalli am
the original complainant F.I.R. No. I-1/2017
before the Mahila Police Station, Modasa, do
hereby solemnly affirm as under;

1) I have lodged Criminal complaint being
C.R. No. I 001/2017 dated 10-02-2017
registered with Mahila Police Station-
Modasa, District Aravalli for the offences
punishable under section 498A, 506(2) and
114 of Indian Penal Code against the present
petitioner and I am aware about the facts of
the case.

2) It is respectfully submitted that, with
the interference of reputed persons of
society and the family members of both the
parties, the dispute has been amicably
settled and I have no grievance against the

Page 3 of 6

HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Sun Sep 24 19:57:53 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/8622/2017 ORDER

present petitioners. It is respectfully
submitted that I and present petitioner no.1
has entered into an agreement of dissolution
of marriage on 10.06.2017 and accordingly we
have acted upon and now we are separated,
the agreement was entered into in presence
of society members and now we have no
grievance surviving. The copy of the
agreement dated 10.06.2017 is annexed as
Annexute R-I.

3) I therefore submit that I have no
objection if the FIR being C.R.No. I
001/2017 dated 10-02-2017 registered with
Mahila Police Station- Modasa, District
Aravalli for the offences punishable under
section 498A, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal
Code which is filed by me is quashed
alongwith all subsequent proceedings.”

8. Respondent No.2 is present in person before the
Court and is identified by learned advocate for respondent
No.2 and confirms that settlement is arrived at between the
parties. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No.2 has
declared before this Court that the dispute between the
applicant and the 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.

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

Page 4 of 6

HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Sun Sep 24 19:57:53 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/8622/2017 ORDER

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.

10. As observed by the Supreme Court in Narinder
Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014)
6 SCC 466, which finds reference in the decision of the
Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak and
others (2014) 10 SCC 285, the Court, at the stage of
considering the application under section 482 of the Code, can
also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the
parties is going to result in harmony between them which may
improve their future relationship. 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.

11. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the
impugned FIR bearing C.R. No. I – 001 of 2017 registered
with Mahila Police Station- Modasa, District Aravalli
filed against the present applicants is hereby quashed and set
aside qua the applicants. Consequently, all other proceedings

Page 5 of 6

HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Sun Sep 24 19:57:53 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/8622/2017 ORDER

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.)
MAYA

Page 6 of 6

HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Sun Sep 24 19:57:53 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

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