Gujarat High Court
Sanjay @ Gendo Natwarbhai Paradiya ... vs State Of Gujarat & on 6 May, 2015
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
R/CR.MA/8619/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8619 of 2015
(FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER)
=============================================
SANJAY @ GENDO NATWARBHAI PARADIYA (MARWADI)....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. KISHAN H DAIYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.KISHAN PRAJAPATI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NJ SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 06/05/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Mr.Mahesh Pujara, learned advocate states that he has received instruction to appear on behalf of respondent No.2 original complainant and he shall file his appearance within a period of two days. He states that the complainant namely Bipinbhai Popatbhai Dantani - father of the prosecutrix as well as the prosecutrix herself, who attended majority in the month of March, 2015 are present in the Court and has been identified by him.
2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
3. Rule. Mr.N.J.Shah, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf respondent No.1 State of Gujarat and Mr.Mahesh Pujara, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2 original complainant.
4. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants original accused Page 1 of 5 R/CR.MA/8619/2015 ORDER persons, have prayed for quashing of the FIR registered at CR No. I 86 of 2014 dated 14.06.2014 before Madhavpura Police Station, Ahmedabad filed against him for the offenses punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 and 8 of the Pocso Act, on the ground that the matter is of private nature and at the intervention of respected members of the society the dispute has already been settled between the parties.
5. Mr. Kishan H. Daiya, learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the matter is of private nature and at the intervention of respected members of the society the dispute has already been settled between the parties and it would be futile exercise if the applicants are subjected to trial, and therefore, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings thereto, if any, to be quashed and set aside. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gian Singh versus State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2012(10)SCC 303 as well as in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. V/s. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. reported in [2013(3)] 54 (3) G.L.R 1875 and submitted that since the matter is settled and all the grievances raised in the FIR do not exist, there is no need to proceed further with the trial with regard to the FIR.
6. I have heard Mr.Mahesh Pujara, learned advocate for respondent No. 2. He would submit that whatever has been mentioned in the affidavit dated 6/7.05.2015 filed by the prosecutrix as well as in affidavit dated 6/7.05.2015 filed by the complainant are correct. He has states that the prosecutrix does not want to proceed further with the FIR since she is going to marry with the person of her own caste as per her own will and wish. He would further submit Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/8619/2015 ORDER that pendency of the FIR would decrease the prosectrix's prospect of marriage, therefore, she requests to quash the FIR. He would further submit that the prosecutrix has no objection, if the FIR and the subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and set aside. The affidavit filed by the prosecutrix as well as the complainant is taken on record.
7. Mr.N.J.Shah, learned APP has opposed this application since the present applicant is facing charge for the offence is registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which is non compoundable offence and, therefore, even though compromise have been arrived at between the parties, the FIR cannot be quashed as the said offence is against the public. By relying upon Paragraph - 61 of the judgement delivered in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (Supra) learned APP would further submit that in certain heinous crime, the victim and victims family and the offender have settled the dispute, the Court should not exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.
8. The affidavit filed by prosecutrix dated 6/7.05.2015 reads as under:
"I, Bhavna D/o Bipinbhai Dantani, Aged 18 years residing at Bhagubhai Ni Chali, Shahpur, Ahmedabad respondent No. 2 original complainant files this affidavit as under :
It is submitted that I am the daughter of the Ori. Complainant who has filed the FIR registered with Madhavpura Police Station as CR No. I86 of 2014 and it further stated that I known to the petitioner as he is residing in our area and complaint filed by my father is on some misunderstanding and misconception which is already been shorted out with the help of friends and relatives and community people and now there is no Page 3 of 5 R/CR.MA/8619/2015 ORDER will or grievances remain amongst us and it is further stated that the petitioner has not committed any forceful act with me and now my engagement is also fixed by my father and therefore, the pendency of criminal proceedings will affect my marriage life and therefore, the pendency of criminal proceedings will affect my marriage life and therefore I earnestly urge this Hon'ble Court to terminate the proceedings as prayed for by petitioner in the interest of justice."
9. The affidavit filed by the complainant dated 6/7.05.2015 reads as under:
"I, Bipinbhai Popatbhai Dantani, Aged 46 years residing at Bhagubhai Ni Chali, Shahpur, Ahmedabad respondent No. 2 original complainant files this affidavit as under :
It is submitted that I am the Ori. Complainant who has filed the FIR registered with Madhavpura Police Station as CR No. I86 of 2014 and after registeration of the offence at present my daughter become major and I have fixed her engagement in my comminity and the marriage will also perform in near future and the complaint filed by me is on some misunderstanding and misconception which is already been shorted out with the help of friends and relatives and community and at present the dispute is amicably resolved between us and therefore, now there is no will or grievances remain between us and all dispute is amicably resolved between us and therefore I does not want to continue with my complaint and the complaint was lodged by me is because of some misunderstanding and misconception, which is already been shorted out with the help of friends and relatives and therefore I earnestly urge this Hon'ble Court to terminate the proceedings as prayed by the petitioner in the interest of justice."
10. So far as the decision rendered in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (Supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the cases of heinous and serious offences of mental Page 4 of 5 R/CR.MA/8619/2015 ORDER depravity or offences like murder, rape, decoity, etc., the FIR could not be quashed, even though, the victim or victims family and the offender have settled the dispute, However, in the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the High Court finds that continuance of the trial would be futile exercise and quashment of the FIR would meet the ends of justice, inherent power would be exercised. Gravity of the offence is required to be looked into in the case of quashment of the noncompoundable offence. High Court has to consider the nature and gravity of the crime and its impact on society. On the background of the ratio laid down in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (Supra), I have accordingly considered the case on hand. I have perused the papers of FIR and nature and gravity of the offence. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the affidavit filed by the prosecutrix, the present application requires consideration and the same is allowed. The FIR being CR No. I 86 of 2014 dated 14.06.2014 before Madhavpura Police Station, Ahmedabad along with all the proceedings thereunder, if any, are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
11. Since the FIR itself has been quashed and set aside by this Court, , the petitioner, who is in custody, shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
(A.J.DESAI, J.) *Kazi...
Page 5 of 5