Gujarat High Court
Vrushik @ Lalo Kiritbhai Patel ( Paurrik ... vs State Of Gujarat & on 20 July, 2015
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
R/CR.MA/13660/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 13660 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
VRUSHIK @ LALO KIRITBHAI PATEL ( PAURRIK KIRITBHAI
PATEL)....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR K S CHANDRANI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ALOK THAKKAR, ADVOCATE for Respondent No.2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Date : 20/07/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1. Mr.Alok Thakkar, learned advocate Page 1 of 6 R/CR.MA/13660/2015 JUDGMENT states that he has received instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2Complainant and would be filing his Vakalatnama in the Registry, during the course of the day. He is permitted to do so. He waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2 Complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances in which the matter arises, it is being heard and decided finally, at this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. This application under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) has been preferred by the applicant with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR, being C.R.No.I59/2015, registered on 11.07.2015, with Mahila Police Station, Rajkot, for offences punishable under Sections354(A)(1)(i) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and all other consequential proceedings.
3. The case of the prosecution, based upon the complaint submitted by respondent No.2 is that the applicant used to make indecent gestures and propositions to respondent No.2.
4. It is the case of the applicant before this Court Page 2 of 6 R/CR.MA/13660/2015 JUDGMENT that the matter has been amicably settled between the applicant and respondent No.2, who has filed an affidavit in this regard, stating that the family of the applicant is wellknown to her family and the misunderstanding has been resolved with the intervention of family members of both sides and the dispute has been amicably resolved. Respondent No.2 no longer wants to proceed with the criminal prosecution and has no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
5. Mr.K.S.Chandrani, learned advocate for the applicant submits that in view of the amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties which has arisen due to some misunderstanding, the prayers made in the application may be granted.
6. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported in (2008)4 SCC 582 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303.
7. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 has objected to the Page 3 of 6 R/CR.MA/13660/2015 JUDGMENT prayer made by the applicant and respondent No.2 and submits that the law may be permitted to run its own course.
8. Mr.Alok Thakkar, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the stand taken by respondent No.2 in her affidavit, by submitting that the family of respondent No.2 and that of the applicant resides in the same vicinity and are known to each other. The dispute has been settled amicably with the intervention of family members of both sides and a harmonious relationship prevails between them now. Respondent No.2 no longer wishes to continue with the criminal prosecution and has no objection if the FIR is quashed and set aside .
9. The complainant is present in person. The complainant has been identified by Mr.Alok Thakkar, learned advocate for respondent No.2. She has reiterated the stand taken by her in the affidavit.
10. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments made in the application as well as the contents of the affidavit.
Page 4 of 6
R/CR.MA/13660/2015 JUDGMENT
11. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra), the Supreme Court has held that it is advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the courts should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings, since keeping the matter alive, with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution, is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford. The time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.
12. This position of law has been reiterated in a more recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another (supra).
13. In view of settlement between the parties and considering the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another (supra), the following order is passed:
The complaint, being C.R.No.I59/2015, registered on 11.07.2015, with Mahila Police Station, Rajkot, for offences punishable under Sections Page 5 of 6 R/CR.MA/13660/2015 JUDGMENT 354(A)(1)(i) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and all other consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside.
14. The application is allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.
15. Direct Service is permitted.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) Gaurav+ Page 6 of 6