Himalay Rameshbhai Selariya & 3 vs State Of Gujarat & on 11 May, 2017

R/CR.MA/12068/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 12068 of 2017

HIMALAY RAMESHBHAI SELARIYA 3….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 4
MR TUSHAR L SHETH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.J.K.SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

Date : 11/05/2017

ORAL ORDER

[1] Learned advocate Mr.Tushar L. Sheth seeks permission
to assist the Court on behalf of the original complainant.
Permission granted. He is permitted to file his vakalatnama on
behalf of the original-complainant today itself.

[2] RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives
service of note of Rule on behalf of the respondent – State of
Gujarat.

[3] By way of this application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants seek to invoke
the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the First
Information Report being C.R.No.I-83 of 2017 registered with the
Mahila Police Station, District Rajkot for the offence punishable
under Sections 306, 498A, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the ground
that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute.

Page 1 of 3

HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Thu May 11 23:50:55 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/12068/2017 ORDER

[4] An affidavit dated 10th May 2017 is tendered by the

learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant
to this effect, which is taken on record. The contents of the
affidavit are admitted by the complainant, who is present before
the Court, inter alia, stating as under :

“I, Dashrathbhai Parsana, son of Chhaganbhai Parsana, aged;
Adult, Residing at Amidhan Park, Blok No. E/3, Opp. Punitnagar
Water Tank, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot-respondent no.2 herein –
original complainant, do hereby state on solemn affirmation
and oath as under:-

1. I say that I have lodged FIR with Police Station being C.R.No.I-

83 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 306,
498A, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and
sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the
petitioners. I say that at the time when I lodged aforestated
FIR, there was some misunderstanding. I say that I was not in
proper frame of mind. However, on account of the
intervention of the elders and reputed persons of the society,
dispute between myself and the petitioners is amicably
resolved. There is no grudge or any misunderstanding
between myself and the petitioners. I say that I have lodged
FIR. However, same is without any foundation. I say that
petitioners are not involved in commission of the alleged
offence. Under these circumstances, I do not want to
prosecute petitioners for no reasons. I say that it would be a
futile exercise if the petitioners are prosecuted and, therefore,
FIR lodged by me being C.R.No.I-83 of 2017 lodged with
Mahila Police Station, Rajkot, is required to be quashed.

2. I say that in view of the aforestated settlement, dispute
between myself and the petitioner is amicably settled. I do
not desire to prosecute the petitioner any further. It would,
therefore, be in the interest of justice if the FIR be quashed. I
have no objection to the quashment of the FIR being C.R.No.I-
83 of 2017 lodged with Mahila Police Station,Rajkot.”

[5] Taking into consideration the fact that the parties have
amicably resolved the dispute, no useful purpose would now be
served to permit the investigation to continue further.

[6] In the result, this application is allowed. The First

Page 2 of 3

HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Thu May 11 23:50:55 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/12068/2017 ORDER

Information Report being C.R.No.I-83 of 2017 registered with the
Mahila Police Station, District Rajkot, is hereby ordered to be
quashed. All consequential proceedings pursuant thereto shall
also stand terminated. Learned advocate for the applicants
submits that accused are behind bar. The said applicants/accused
shall be released forthwith.

[7] Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J.)

dharmendra

Page 3 of 3

HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Thu May 11 23:50:55 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

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