R/CR.MA/17412/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17412 of 2018
PARESHBHAI RAMESHBHAI CHUDASAMA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
Appearance:
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2
MR DHRUVIL MERCHANT, LD.ADV. for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
MS MOXA THAKKAR, LD.APP(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 18/09/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. Leave to correct the name of the husband of the complainant in
the affidavit filed by respondent No.2.
2. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties. Learned advocate Mr.Dhruvil Merchant states that he has
an instructions to appear for respondent No.2 complainant. He is
permitted to file his appearance forthwith.
3. Rule. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as learned
advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of Rule on
behalf of the respective respondents.
4. Considering the issue involved in the present application and
with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the
applicants and respondent No.2 has been resolved amicably, this
application is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
Page 1 of 4
R/CR.MA/17412/2018 ORDER
5. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the
applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside F.I.R.
bearing C.R. No. I 28 of 2018 registered with Mahila Police
Station, Rajkot city for the commission of offence punishable
under Sections 354, 493, 406, 495, 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), 114,
etc. of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, etc. as well as all other
consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the
applicants.
6. Learned advocate for the applicants has taken this Court
through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At
the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved
the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings
pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings
arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicants. It is
submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these
proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the
applicants and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of
trusted persons of the society. It is further submitted that in view
of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and
any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse
of process of law. It is therefore submitted that this Court may
exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the
Code and allow the application as prayed for.
7. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has
opposed the present application and submitted that considering the
seriousness of the offence, the complaint in question may not be
quashed and the present application may be rejected.
Page 2 of 4
R/CR.MA/17412/2018 ORDER
8. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the
contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. The
learned advocate for respondent No.2 also relied upon the affidavit
filed by respondent No.2 dated 12.09.2018. Respondent No.2 along
with parents are present in person before the Court and are
identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2. On inquiry
made by the Court, respondent No.2 has declared before this Court
that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 is
resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society and
therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore
submitted that the present application may be allowed.
9. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties and considered the facts and circumstances arising out of
this application as well as Affidavit filed by the complainant. She
has married with Pareshbhai son of Rameshbhai Chudasama.
I have also taken into consideration the decisions rendered in
the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab Anr., reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab,
reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31,
Manoj Sharma Vs. State Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190
and Narinder Singh Ors. Vs. State of Punjab Anr. reported
in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it appears that further continuation of
criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the
applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. I
have also considered the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat,
Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 dated 4.10.2017 and the
guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said
decision, particularly paragraph 15. Considering the nature of
disputes between the parties which are all private in nature, I am
Page 3 of 4
R/CR.MA/17412/2018 ORDER
of the opinion that the matter requires consideration. It appears
that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse
of process of law and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the
impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise
of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code.
10. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned F.I.R.
bearing C.R. No. I 28 of 2018 registered with Mahila Police
Station, Rajkot city for the commission of offence punishable
under Sections 354, 493, 406, 495, 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), 114,
etc. of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, etc. is hereby quashed and set
aside qua the applicants. Consequently, all other proceedings
arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. are also quashed and set aside
qua the applicants. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute.
Direct service is permitted.
[A.J.DESAI, J.]
*dipti
Page 4 of 4
