IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9028 of 2017
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8831 of 2018
ZACHARIAH MUNDAKAPALLIL MATHEW
STATE OF GUJARAT
MR HARSH V GAJJAR(7828) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2
MR VILAV K BHATIA(5338) 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 : 11/10/2018
1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties. Learned advocate Mr. Vilav Bhatia states that he has
instructions to appear on behalf of the complainant in Special
Criminal Application No. 8831 of 2018 also. He is directed to file
his appearance forthwith.
2. Since Rule had already been issued in Special Criminal
Application No. 9028 of 2017, Rule in Special Criminal Application
No. 8831 of 2018. 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”),
Page 1 of 4
the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside F.I.R.
bearing C.R. No. I – 29 of 2017 registered with Mahila Police
Station (West), Dist. Ahmedabad for the commission of offence
punishable under Sections 498A, 294B, 506(2), 114 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read
with Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act as well as quash all other
consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the
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 affidavits 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
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
Page 2 of 4
affidavits filed by respondent No.2 – Shalini Jiss Mathews dated
03.10.2018. 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 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, these applications are allowed and the impugned
FIR bearing C.R. No. I – 29 of 2017 registered with Mahila
Police Station (West), Dist. Ahmedabad filed against the
present applicants is hereby quashed and set aside qua the
applicants. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the
Page 3 of 4
aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside qua the applicants.
Rule is made absolute.
Direct service is permitted.
Page 4 of 4