Gujarat High Court Criminal Misc.Application (For … vs State Of Gujarat & on 5 August, 2014
R/CR.MA/1090/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO.1090 of 2014 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Sd/ ===================================================== Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be 1 NO allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO Whether their Lordships wish to see the 3 NO fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation 4 NO of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
Whether it is to be circulated to the 5 NO civil judge ?
===================================================== SUPRIYKUMAR AMRUTBHAI PRAJAPATI &
4….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s) =================================================== Appearance:
MR FB BRAHMBHATT, ADVOCATE for Applicant(s) No.15 MS HANSA PUNANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR SAHIL M SHAH, ADVOCATE for Respondent(s) No. 2 =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Date : 05/08/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(1) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
(2) RULE. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service.
Page 1 of 5
R/CR.MA/1090/2014 JUDGMENT
(3) Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the parties has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
(4) By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the applicants original accused have prayed for the following reliefs:
“(A) This Honourable Court be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(B) This Honourable Court be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR bearing Crime Registrar No.II377 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and chargesheet submitted thereunder and also Criminal Case No.3660 2013 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalol, and further proceedings initiated thereunder.
(C) Pending, admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition further proceedings of Criminal Case No.3660 of 2013 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalol be stayed.
(D) This Honourable Court be pleased to grant any other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Page 2 of 5
R/CR.MA/1090/2014 JUDGMENT
(5) This Court on 23.01.2014 issued notice and during pendency of hearing, as the dispute was of personal nature arising out of some misunderstanding, the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and the petitioners have filed undertaking dated 01.08.2014 to that effect, which indicates that the parties have resolved the dispute. The said undertaking shows that the parties have endeavoured to bury the hatchets, more particularly as indicative from Paragraph Nos.1 to 3 of the aforesaid undertaking.
(6) Learned advocate for respondent No.2Orig. complainant has also tendered an affidavit dated 05.08.2014, which is taken on record, wherein respondent No.2 has specifically stated that in view of the aforesaid undertaking and also in view of the assurance of the petitioners to comply with the said undertaking in its true spirit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the present petition is allowed by this Court.
(7) Learned advocate for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that the petitioners shall adhere to the terms of the aforesaid undertaking dated 01.08.2014.
Page 3 of 5
R/CR.MA/1090/2014 JUDGMENT
(8) Learned advocate for respondent No.2 further submits that in view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute this Court may pass appropriate order by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code as prayed for.
(9) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondentState, candidly states that as the dispute between the parties is personal in nature, which the parties have amicably resolved, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
No other and further contentions are raised by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
(10) Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as considering the the ratio of the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 S.C.C. 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, 2008(4) S.C.C. 582, Nikhil Merchant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2009(1) GLH 31, as well as Manoj Sharma Vs.
Page 4 of 5
R/CR.MA/1090/2014 JUDGMENT
State & Ors., 2009(1) GLH 190, it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned F.I.R. against the applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants and would amount to abuse of process of law and court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned F.I.R. is required to be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code.
(11) For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No.II377 of 2013 registered at Kalol Taluka Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar, chargesheet filed pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R are hereby quashed and set aside.
(12) Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.
Sd/
[R.M.CHHAYA, J ]
***
Bhavesh [pps]*
Page 5 of 5
