SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Special Criminal … vs State Of Gujarat & on 25 July, 2014

Gujarat High Court Special Criminal … vs State Of Gujarat & on 25 July, 2014

R/SCR.A/2839/2014 JUDGMENT


SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION(QUASHING)NO.2839 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 ?

===================================================== VASANTLAL KACHARUJI DARJI  &  2….Applicant(s) Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT  &  1….Respondent(s) =================================================== Appearance:

MR DA SANKHESARA, ADVOCATE for Applicant(s) No.1­3 MS HANSA PUNANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR DIVYESH D BAIS, ADVOCATE for Respondent(s) No.2 =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA  Date : 25/07/2014


(1) Heard   learned   counsel   for   the   respective  parties.

(2) RULE.  Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the  respective respondents waive service. 

(3) Considering   the   issue   involved   in   the  present   petition   and   with   consent   of   the 

Page 1 of 6

R/SCR.A/2839/2014 JUDGMENT

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   petition   is   taken   up   for  final disposal forthwith. 

(4) By   way   of   the   present   petition   under  Section   482   of   the   Code   of   Criminal  Procedure,   1973   (the   Code)   the  petitioners­original   accused   have   prayed  for   quashing   of   F.I.R.   being   C.R.   No.II­ 3001   of   2014   registered   at   Vijaynagar  Police Station, Dist. Sabarkantha for the  offences   under   Sections   498A,   323,   504,  506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,  1860   (the   IPC)   as   well   as   charge­sheet  filed pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. 

(5) At   the   outset   learned   advocate   for   the  petitioners­original accused has submitted  that the dispute between the parties   was  predominantly   of   domestic   in   nature   and  was a matrimonial dispute, which they have  amicably settled outside the court. Reliance   is   placed   upon   the   affidavit 

Page 2 of 6

R/SCR.A/2839/2014 JUDGMENT

filed by respondent No.2 dated 10.07.2014  wherein   it   is   mentioned   that   an   amicable  settlement has been arrived at between the  parties due to intervention of the family  members   and   the   misunderstanding   on   her  part   have   been   resolved.   It   is  categorically submitted that she does not  intend to pursue the F.I.R. and she has no  objection   and   she   gives   consent   for  quashing of the criminal proceedings. (6) Learned   advocate   for   the   petitioners­ original   accused   further   submits   that   in  view   of   the   fact   that   the   parties   have  amicably   resolved   the   dispute,   which   was  predominantly   of   domestic   in   nature   and  was   a   matrimonial   dispute,   any   further  continuation   of   the   proceedings   pursuant  to   the   impugned   F.I.R.   shall   amount   to  harassment to the parties and therefore it  is submitted that in order to secure the  ends   of   justice,   this   Court   may   exercise  its   inherent   jurisdiction   under   Section  482 of the Code and may quash the impugned  F.I.R.   and   charge­sheet,   as   well   as   all  consequential   proceedings   arising   out   of  the impugned F.I.R. 

(7) Learned advocate for the respondent No.2, 

Page 3 of 6

R/SCR.A/2839/2014 JUDGMENT

has   reiterated   the   contentions   raised   by  the learned advocate for the petitioners­ original accused. It is further submitted  that respondent No.2 is personally present  in   the   court,   who   is   identified   by   the  learned   advocate   for   respondent   No.2.   To  establish her identify, the election card  of   respondent   No.2   is   tendered,   which   is  taken on record.

On enquiry by this Court, respondent No.2­ first   informant,   states   that   the   parties  have   amicably   settled   the   dispute   and   an  affidavit to that effect is also placed on  record   of   the   present   proceedings   and,  therefore, the first informant states that  she does not want to proceed further with  the matter in connection with the impugned  F.I.R.   and   she   has   no   objection   if   the  criminal   proceedings   are   quashed   qua   the  present petitioners.

(8) Learned   Assistant   Public   Prosecutor   for  the respondent­State candidly states that  as   the   dispute   between   the   parties   has  amicably   resolved,   this   Court   may   pass  appropriate orders.

Page 4 of 6

R/SCR.A/2839/2014 JUDGMENT

No   other   and   further   contentions   are  raised by the learned advocates appearing  for the respective parties.

(9) Having   heard   the   learned   advocates  appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respective  parties,   considering   the   facts   and  circumstances   arising   out   of   the   present  petition as well as considering 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,  Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., 2009(1) GLH  190 as well as  Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs.  State of Panjab & Anr., 2014(2) Crimes 67  (SC), it appears that further continuation  of criminal proceedings in relation to the  impugned   F.I.R.   against   the   petitioners  would   be   unnecessary   harassment   to   the  petitioners  and   would   amount   to   abuse   of  process   of   law   and  court   and   hence,   to  secure   the   ends   of   justice,   the   impugned  F.I.R. and charge­sheet filed pursuant to 

Page 5 of 6

R/SCR.A/2839/2014 JUDGMENT

the F.I.R. are required to be quashed in  exercise of power under Section 482 of the  Code.

(10) For   the   reasons   stated   hereinabove,   the  present   petition   is   allowed.   Impugned  F.I.R.   being   C.R.  No.II­3001   of   2014  registered   at   Vijaynagar   Police   Station,  Dist.   Sabarkantha,   charge­sheet   filed  pursuant to the said F.I.R. as well as all  other   consequential   proceedings   arising  out   of   the   aforesaid   F.I.R   are  hereby  quashed   and   set   aside   qua   the   present  petitioners.

(11) Rule   is   made   absolute   to   the   aforesaid  extent.  Direct service permitted. 




Bhavesh [pps]* 

Page 6 of 6

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