R/CR.MA/485/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 485 of 2020
GAURAVKUMAR DEVENDRASINGH GAHERVAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
Appearance:
MR HARDIK H PANDIT(5820) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA
Date : 09/01/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Mr. Nikhil Vyas states that he has
instructions to appear for respondent No.2 – complainant. He is
permitted to file his Vakalatnama.
2. Respondent no.2 – complainant is present before the Court
and admits correctness and genuineness of the affidavit filed by
her through her learned advocate. Learned advocate Mr.Nikhil
Vyas identifies respondent no.2 and confirms correctness and
genuineness of the affidavit filed by her annexed at Annexure-C.
3. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr.Trivedi and learned advocate
Mr.Nikhil Vyas waive service of Rule for respondent Nos.1 and 2
respectively. Learned APP objects quashment of present
proceedings on the premise of settlement.
4. With the consent of learned advocate for the applicants and
learned advocate for respondents, present application is taken up
for final disposal today.
5. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the ‘Code’), the
Page 1 of 2
Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 02:40:33 IST 2020
R/CR.MA/485/2020 ORDER
applicants pray for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. being
C.R.No.I-138 of 2012 registered with Chandkheda Police Station
for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 294(kh) and
114 of IPC.
6. Learned advocate for the applicants has taken this Court
through the factual matrix arising out of the present application.
7. At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably
resolved the dispute. In support of such submission made at bar
by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties,
they have placed on record affidavit of settlement of dispute duly
signed by the respondent No.2 – complainant.
8. Since now, the dispute with reference to the impugned
F.I.R. is settled and resolved by and between parties which is
confirmed by the original complainant through his learned
advocate, the trial would be futile and any further continuation of
proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore,
the impugned F.I.R. is required to be quashed and set aside.
9. Resultantly, this application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R.
being C.R.No.I-138 of 2012 registered with Chandkheda Police
Station, charge sheet, all other consequential proceedings
arising out of said FIR and proceedings of Criminal Case No.3535
of 2012 pending before the learned JMFC Court, Gandhinagar are
hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants only. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.
(S.H.VORA, J)
SATISH
Page 2 of 2
Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 02:40:33 IST 2020
