R/CR.MA/6297/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 6297 of 2017
GANSHYAMBHAI VALJIBHAI SATAPARA 3….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)
Appearance:
MR RAXIT J DHOLAKIA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 4
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. LB DABHI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 13/09/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties. Learned advocate Mr. Harnish Darji 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. 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.
3. 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 -9 of 2017 registered with Mahila
Page 1 of 4
HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 16 19:48:26 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/6297/2017 ORDER
Police Station, Rajkot, Dist. Rajkot for the commission of
offence punishable under Sections 406,498A,323,504 and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code read and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, as well as, quash all other consequential
proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicants.
4. 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. 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.
5. 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 – Vanitaben Ganshyambhai
Satapara dated 13.09.2017. Respondent No.2 is present in
person before the Court and is identified by learned advocate for
Page 2 of 4
HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 16 19:48:26 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/6297/2017 ORDER
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 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.
7. 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.
8. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the
impugned FIR bearing C.R. No. I – 9 of 2017 registered with
Mahila Police Station, Rajkot, Dist. Rajkot filed against the
present applicants is hereby quashed and set aside qua the
applicants. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the
aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside qua the applicants.
Rule is made absolute.
Direct service is permitted.
Page 3 of 4
HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 16 19:48:26 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/6297/2017 ORDER
(A.J.DESAI, J.)
M KUMAR
Page 4 of 4
HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 16 19:48:26 IST 2017
