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
Pankaj Kumar Singh S/O. Lakhan Singh vs State Of Gujarat on 28 March, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2357/2023 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 2357 of 2023
PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH S/O. LAKHAN SINGH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT ANR.
Appearance:
MR. ALTAF Y CHARKHA(7271) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 28/03/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Mr.Shreyang S. Vayeda states that he has
instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and
thereby, seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is
granted. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on
behalf of the respective respondents.
3. 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. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”),
the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint
Page 1 of 6
Downloaded on : Mon Apr 01 20:41:56 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2357/2023 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2024
undefined
being FIR being C.R. No.11196013220049 of 2022 registered
with Sama Police Station, Vadodara for the offences under
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as
and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom
5. Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted
that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have
settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual
settlement, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit,
which is taken / placed on record. In the Affidavit, the original
complainant have categorically stated that the dispute with the
applicant has been resolved amicably and that he has no
objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside
since there is no surviving grievance between them.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and considered the material available on record, in the complaint,
it appears that complaint is filed at the instance of the
respondent No.2 and complainant has received Rs.15 lakhs and
she has appeared and verified the factum of the settlement. It
appears that applicant is facing charge under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3
and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the proceedings are
culminated into Criminal Case No.14785 of 2022 and the same is
pending for adjudication. It is the case of the prosecution that
the present applicant-Husband and respondent No.2- wife had
Page 2 of 6
Downloaded on : Mon Apr 01 20:41:56 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2357/2023 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2024
undefined
married with each other and the marriage was solemnized on
25.01.2015. Out of the wedlock, one daughter is born and he is
residing with the complainant-mother. Due to some in-
differences, their marriage life was disturbed. It is alleged that
the accused persons ill-treated her and they harassed her
physicall and mental. Due to this complaint is filed. Considering
the fact that divorce of the applicant and respondent No.2 wife
has already taken place by way of Suit No.519 of 2021 by the
Family Court, Dhanbad However, dispute is private in nature and
both the parties have settled the dispute and not adversely
effect to the State. Considering the fact that dispute is private in
nature and matrimonial and they have separated. It appears that
petitioners are facing charge of Section 498A of IPC. Therefore,
as per the allegations made in the complaint, ingredient of
Section 498A is made out. In this regard, it would be apposite to
refer the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Abhishek vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023INSC779 / (Criminal
Appeal No. 1457 of 2015) and in case of Preeti Gupta and
another vs. State of Jharkhand and another [(2010) 7 SCC
667], it is observed that “this Court noted that the tendency to
implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not
uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was
observed that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious
in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities
into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases, as
allegations of harassment by husband’s close relations, who were
living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place
Page 3 of 6
Downloaded on : Mon Apr 01 20:41:56 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2357/2023 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2024
undefined
where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different
complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with
great care and circumspection”.
6.1. So far as offence under Sections 498A and 323 of IPC are
also concerned, in this regard, it would be apposite the refer the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kahkasan Kausar
alias Sonam and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in
(2022) 6 SCC 599.
6.2. So far as under Section 506 (2) is concerned, the learned
Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid and Anr. v. State of
U.P. and Ors., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624: 2023 INSC
683, has held that:
7. Further, in the opinion of this Court, the further
continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant/s in
relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary
harassment to the applicant/s. 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
Page 4 of 6
Downloaded on : Mon Apr 01 20:41:56 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2357/2023 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2024
undefined
impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in
pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..
8. In the aforesaid backdrop, complaint is filed. It is necessary
to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court
under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 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.
9. However, it is worth to mention that, though complainant/
wife has received permanent alimony, so far as right of children is
concerned, mother I.e. respondent No.2 is having guardianship of
Page 5 of 6
Downloaded on : Mon Apr 01 20:41:56 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2357/2023 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2024
undefined
the minor. It is needless to say that such settlement, if against
the public policy and not in the interest and welfare of the minor,
at that time, the right of the minor in the property of the father
does not adversely affect the co-parcenery right in the property,
of minor.
10. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned
complaint being FIR being C.R. No.11196013220049 of 2022 is
hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant herein. Rule is
made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
11. If the applicant/s is in jail, the jail authority concerned is
directed to release the applicant/s forthwith, if not required in
connection with any other case.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
KUMAR ALOK
Page 6 of 6
Downloaded on : Mon Apr 01 20:41:56 IST 2024
