R/CR.MA/23182/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 23182 of 2019
MUKESH RAMESHWARPRASAD PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
Appearance:
MR HARDIK A DAVE(3764) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS KRINA CALLA APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA
Date : 16/12/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Mr.Pavan Barot states at bar that he has
instructions to appear for respondent No.2 – complainant and seeks
permission to file appearance. Permission is accordingly granted.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Pavan Barot confirms identity of
Respondent No.2, who is present before the Court and admits
genuineness and correctness of affidavit filed through learned
advocate Mr.Pavan Barot, which is annexed at Annexure-B to the
application.
3. Rule. Learned A.P.P. and learned advocate Mr.Pavan Barot
waive service of Rule for respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The
learned A.P.P. objects quashment of the 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.
Page 1 of 2
Downloaded on : Mon Dec 16 22:52:05 IST 2019
R/CR.MA/23182/2019 ORDER
5. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the ‘Code’), the
applicants pray for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. being
C.R.No.I-216 of 2012 registered with Pandesara police station for the
offence punishable under Sections 498A, Section494, Section504 and Section114 of the
Indian Penal Code.
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 – original complainant, who is present
before the Court.
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 her 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-216 of 2012 registered with Pandesara police station as
well as Criminal Case No.33975 of 2012 pending before the learned
J.M.F.C., Surat against the present applicants are hereby quashed
and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
(S.H.VORA, J)
Hitesh
Page 2 of 2
Downloaded on : Mon Dec 16 22:52:05 IST 2019