Gujarat High Court Special Criminal … vs State Of Gujarat & on 25 July, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
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
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
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
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
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
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.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J ]
Page 6 of 6