Anshuman Khaitan @ Anshuman … vs State Of Gujarat & on 14 November, 2017

R/CR.MA/16912/2015 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 16912 of 2015

ANSHUMAN KHAITAN @ ANSHUMAN GANGESHBHAI KHAITAN
4….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR. BHADRISH S RAJU, ADVOCATE WITH MR KURAN H VAKIL,
ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 5
MR ASHISH M DAGLI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR DHARMESH DEVNANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 14/11/2017

ORAL ORDER

1 Rule   returnable   forthwith.   Mr.   Devnani,   the   learned   Additional 
Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the 
respondent No.1­ State of Gujarat. Mr. Dagli, the learned advocate has 
entered   appearance   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   No.2   ­   original   first 
informant and waives service of notice of rule.

2 By   this   application   under   Section   482   of   the   Code   of   Criminal 
Procedure,   1973,   the   applicants   –   original   accused   persons   seek   to 
invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the 
First Information Report being II – C.R. No.110 of 2014 registered with 
the   Mahila   Police   Station,   Rajkot   for   the   offence   punishable   under 
Sections 498A, 323 and 506(2) read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code 

Page 1 of 3

HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue Nov 14 23:11:51 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/16912/2015 ORDER

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 

3 It appears from the materials on record that the applicant No.1 
came   in   contact   with   the   respondent   No.2   through   a   matrimonial 
website   called   “www.secondshadi.com”.   After   some   time,   they   got 
married.   The   marriage   was   solemnized   on   21st  January   2012.   Soon 
thereafter,   matrimonial   problems   cropped   up   between   the   applicant 
No.1 and the respondent No.2. In the F.I.R., the allegations have been 
levelled of harassment and cruelty at the end of the applicants. 

4 On 14th September 2015, the following order was passed:

“1. Let rule be issued to the respondents returnable after Diwali Vacation.  
Ms. Punani, the learned APP, waives service of notice of rule for and on  
behalf   of   the   respondent   No.1.   The   respondent   No.2   be   served   directly  
through the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station. 

2. Let there be an ad­interim relief in terms of paragraph No. 15(c).”

5 Thereafter,   on   2nd  November   2017,   the   following   order   was 
passed:

“As a last chance, post this matter on 14th November 2017 on top of the  
Board. It is informed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent  
No.2 that the matter is likely to be settled. If the matter is settled, then the  
respondent No.2 shall personally remain present before this Court on the  
returnable date i.e. 14th November 2017. If the matter is not settled, the  
same will be heard on merits. ”

6 Taking   into   consideration   the   fact   that   the   case   is   one   of 

Page 2 of 3

HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Nov 14 23:11:51 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/16912/2015 ORDER

irretrievable breakdown of marriage and there were no chances of any 
reconciliation,   this   Court   suggested   to   both   the   sides   that   the   matter 
should   be   put   to   an   end   amicably.   The   respondent   No.2   –   wife 
responded positively to the suggestion of this Court and has ultimately 
been able to arrive at an amicable settlement with the applicants. I am 
informed by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and 
the respondent No.2, who is graciously enough to remain present before 
this Court today, that the applicant No.1 and the respondent No.2 have 
filed a joint petition under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for 
dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. A copy of the petition filed by 
the parties in the Court of the Principal Judge (South – East), Family 
Courts,   Saket   Court   Complex,   New   Delhi   is   placed   on   record   for   my 
perusal. The respondent No.2 is personally remained present before this 
Court. I inquired with her whether she was agreeable to put an end to 
this litigation. The respondent No.2 states that she has decided to part 
ways   with   her   husband   and   she   would   be   seeking   a   decree   for 
dissolution   of   marriage   with   mutual   consent.   She   does   not   want   to 
proceed further against the applicants so far as the criminal prosecution 
is concerned. As Both the sides have decided to part ways, they can now 
decide their future course of life. 

7 In the result, this application is allowed. The First Information Report 
being II – C.R. No.110 of 2014 registered with the Mahila Police Station, Rajkot 
is hereby quashed. Consequently, all further proceedings pursuant thereto stand 
terminated. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
chandresh

Page 3 of 3

HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Tue Nov 14 23:11:51 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

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