IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 20075 of 2015
CHAMANSINH CHENAJI PARMAR 3….Applicant(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)
MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1-4
MS. THAKKAR, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the RESPONDENT(s) No.
AMAN A SHAIKH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. R.D.KINARIWALA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 25/01/2018
1. By this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973,
the applicants-original accused persons seek to invoke the
inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first
information report being C.R.No.I-14 of 2015 registered with
the Unava Police Station, District: Mehsana for the offence
punishable under sections 498A, 313, 504 read with 114 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. On 23rd November, 2015, the following order was passed;
“Let rule be issued to the respondents, returnable on
22.1.2016. Mr. Patel, the learned APP, waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1.
Page 1 of 3
HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Thu Jan 25 23:15:54 IST 2018
The respondent No. 2 be served directly through the
investigating officer of the concerned police station.
Let there be an ad-interim order in terms of para-9(B) so
far as the applicants are concerned.
To be heard with Criminal Misc. Application No.20073 of
Direct service is permitted.”
3. Thereafter, on 30th November, 2017, the following order
“Mr. Kinariwala, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2 submitted that even as on date, his
client is in contact with her former husband. He pointed
out that although there has been a customary divorce,
yet the respondent No.2 has feelings for the respondent
No.2-wife. However, according to Mr. Kinariwala, it is the
applicants herein, i.e., the father-in-law, mother-in-law,
sister-in-law and the husband of the sister-in-law, who
are creating trouble for the respondent No.2. It is pointed
out that the former husband is ready and willing to
resettle once again with the respondent No.2, but he is
not being permitted to do so by the applicants herein.
I should know the root cause of all the problems.
Govindsinh Chamansinh Parmar, original accused No.1, is
directed to personally remain present before this Court
on 06.12.2017. The respondent No.2-Archanaba W/o.
Govindsinh shall also personally remain present before
this Court on the next date of hearing.
The learned counsel appearing for the respective parties
shall inform about this order to their respective clients.
Stand over to 06.12.2017.”
4. With the intervention of this Court, there has been a
happy amicable settlement between the husband and wife.
Both are present in the court today. The respondent No.2,
Page 2 of 3
HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Thu Jan 25 23:15:54 IST 2018
namely, Archanaba is now residing with her husband at her
matrimonial home. The husband is also before this Court. He
assures that he would discharge all his marital obligations as a
husband and will take care of his wife. The respondent No.2
also assures this Court that she would discharge all her marital
obligations as a wife and would live a happy marital and
peaceful life. As the parties have resolved the matter, there
should not be any difficulty in quashing the first information
5. In the result, this application succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The first information report being C.R.No.I-14 of
2015 registered with the Unava Police Station, District:
Mehsana is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute to the
Direct service is permitted.
Page 3 of 3
HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Thu Jan 25 23:15:54 IST 2018