Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Gujarat High Court
Ankil Jatinbhai Balkrishna Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 April, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5985/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 5985 of 2024
ANKIL JATINBHAI BALKRISHNA DESAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT ANR.
Appearance:
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS NIKITA C GANDHI(11570) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. DIVYAGNA JHALA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 01/04/2024
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] Learned advocate Ms.Sejal Sutharia states that she has
instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and
seeks permission to file her Vakalatnama, which is granted. The
original complainant is present before this Court and is identified
by her learned advocate.
[2.0] RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on
behalf of the respective respondents.
[3.0] Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both
the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved
amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
[4.0] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
Page 1 of 4
Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:46:51 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5985/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), the petitioner has
prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.
11191028202048 of 2020 registered with Vejalpur Police
Station, District Ahmedabad city for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 294(b), 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act as well as Criminal Case No. 8384 of 2021 and to quash all
other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
[5.0] Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted
that during the pendency of proceedings, the proceedings of co-
accused is also quashed by this Court vide order dated 23.2.2024
in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12982 of 2021 and also
submitted that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and
pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant has
also filed an Affidavit dated 1.4.2024 which is taken on record. In
the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated
that the dispute with the petitioner has been resolved amicably
and that she has no objection, if the present proceedings are
quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance
between them.
[6.0] It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by
the High Court under section 482 of the CrPC is warranted. It is
true that the powers under Section 482 of the Code are very
wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution
in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision
Page 2 of 4
Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:46:51 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5985/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The
inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State
should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a
case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so
when the evidence has not been collected and produced before
the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without
sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid
down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any
stage as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava,
IAS Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.
[7.0] Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the
principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303,
(ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008)
4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj
Sharma Vs. State Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v)
Narinder Singh Ors. Vs. State of Punjab Anr. reported in
2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) as also considering the fact that there has
been executed settlement between the parties by which it has
been amicably resolved to part ways and moved ahead in their
Page 3 of 4
Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:46:51 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5985/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
respective lives and also considering the proceedings of co-
accused is also quashed by this Court vide order dated 23.2.2024
in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12982 of 2021 and there is no
chance of breach of public tranquility and hence, in the opinion of
this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings
against the present petitioner in relation to the impugned FIR
would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. Further,
even the complainant has affirmed the fact of settlement and
filing of affidavit by her. Further, the continuance of trial
pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the
parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of
justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the
impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in
pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..
[8.0] In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being
CR No.11191028202048 of 2020 registered with Vejalpur Police
Station, District Ahmedabad city as well as Criminal Case No.
8384 of 2021 and all consequential proceedings initiated in
pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the
petitioner herein. If the petitioner is in jail, the jail authority
concerned is directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if not
required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute
to the aforesaid extent only. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
BEENA SHAH
Page 4 of 4
Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:46:51 IST 2024
