SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Criminal Misc.Application (For … vs State Of Gujarat & on 5 August, 2014

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation