SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sumit Rameshchandra Joshi vs State Of Gujarat on 17 September, 2018

R/CR.MA/17381/2018 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17381 of 2018

SUMIT RAMESHCHANDRA JOSHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT

Appearance:
MR MIHIR H PATHAK(5261) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MS SEJAL MANDAVIA for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
MR L.B. DABHI, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 17/09/2018
ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties. Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia states that she has
instructions to appear on behalf of the complainant. She is directed
to file her appearance forthwith.

2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as
learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of
Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. 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.

4. 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 – 47 of 2013 registered with Ellisebridge Police
Station, Dist. Ahmedabad for the commission of offence punishable
under Sections 498A, 323, 506(1), 114 of the Indian Penal Code
read with Sections 3 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as

Page 1 of 3
R/CR.MA/17381/2018 ORDER

quash all other consequential proceedings arising out of the
aforesaid FIR qua the applicants.

5. 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.

6. Learned Additional 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.

7. 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-Mrs. Lalita Joshi dated 12.09.2018.
Respondent No.2 is present in person before the Court and is
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 the respondent No.2 is
resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society and

Page 2 of 3
R/CR.MA/17381/2018 ORDER

therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore
submitted that the present application may be allowed.

8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the
present application as well as taking 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. 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.

9. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR
bearing C.R. No. I – 47 of 2013 registered with Ellisebridge Police
Station, Dist. Ahmedabad filed against the present applicants is
hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Consequently, all
other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed
and set aside qua the applicants. Rule is made absolute.

Direct service is permitted.

(R.P.DHOLARIA, J)

CHANDRASHEKHAR

Page 3 of 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2024 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