Gujarat High Court Special Criminal … vs State Of Gujarat & on 5 August, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION(QUASHING)NO.2606 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 ?
===================================================== JIGNESHKUMAR DASHRATHLAL PATEL & 3….Applicant(s) Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s) =================================================== Appearance:
MR ASHOK A PUROHIT, ADVOCATE for Applicant Nos.14 MR LR POOJARI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR DB PATEL, ADVOCATE, for the Respondent(s) No. 2 =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Date : 05/08/2014
(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 5
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.II4 of 2014 registered at Vaghai Police Station, Dist. Dang for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Sections 3(i) (xv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, chargesheet filed pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R.
(5) This Court vide order dated 21.07.2014 issued notice.
(6) Learned advocates for the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 have declared before this Court that respondent No.2 had married petitioner No.1 and because of the dispute and misunderstanding they have separated. It
Page 2 of 5
was further pointed out that after filing of the aforesaid F.I.R. the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, which arose because of some matrimonial dispute.
(7) Learned advocate for the respondent No.2, has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioners original accused and affidavit dated 30.07.2014 (in vernacular language) of respondent No.2 to that effect is also tendered, which is taken on record. 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 substantiate her identity, a copy of Aadhar Card of respondent No.2 is tendered, which is also taken on record.
On enquiry by this Court with help of Ms.Hansa Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, respondent No.2first informant, declared that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, which is of matrimonial nature, 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
Page 3 of 5
proceed further with the matter in connection with the impugned F.I.R.
(8) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondentState, candidly states that as the dispute between the parties was predominantly of matrimonial nature, which the parties have amicably resolved and even on instructions of the Investigation Officer learned APP states that the dispute between the parties have amicably resolved, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
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
Page 4 of 5
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. is 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.II4 of 2014 registered at Vaghai Police Station, Dist. Dang, charge sheet filed pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. are hereby quashed and set aside.
(11) Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J ]
Page 5 of 5