Sikander Husenbhai Bhatti vs State Of Gujarat & on 3 March, 2014

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Sikander Husenbhai Bhatti vs State Of Gujarat & on 3 March, 2014

Bench: G.R.Udhwani

       R/CR.MA/3115/2014                                  JUDGMENT




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                           FIR/ORDER) NO. 3115 of 2014



FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:



HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

================================================================

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, 1950 or any
    order made thereunder ?

5   Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

================================================================
               SIKANDER HUSENBHAI BHATTI....Applicant(s)
                              Versus
                STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR AFZAL KHAN, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

                                Date : 03/03/2014


                                ORAL JUDGMENT

Page 1 of 3

R/CR.MA/3115/2014 JUDGMENT

1. Mr.Imran H. Pathan, learned counsel appears for respondent No.2complainant and undertakes to file the Vakalatnama. Permission is granted.

2. Rule. Respondents waive service. Considering the short dispute and settlement between the parties, Rule is heard today by consent of the parties.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have identified their respective parties and state that the matter is settled between the parties for which respondent No.2complainant has filed affidavit. She is present in the Court. The same is ordered to be taken on record.

4. The petitioner was charged with offences punishable under Sections 376, 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code as also Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection Children from Sexual Offences Act in the FIR having been registered, being IC.R.No.126 of 2013 with Rakhial Police Station, Ahmedabad. The dispute arose on account of difference of opinion for an engagement between the petitioner and daughter of the complainant as owing to skin disease developed by the petitioner, the relationship of the two was not acceptable to the complainant. The dispute is now resolved.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent would urge this Court to quash the FIR in view of the settlement.

Page 2 of 3

R/CR.MA/3115/2014 JUDGMENT

6. Learned APP while vehemently opposing the quashing of the FIR would contend that the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature and would require trial.

7. The dispute predominantly appears to be of private character and in view of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012 (10) SCC 303), such dispute even if not compoundable, can be compounded under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. No useful purpose would be served in allowing the trial, which may cause wastage of public time, money and energy. Under the circumstances, the complaint and all other connected proceedings are quashed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.

8. The petitioner be released if not required in any other case.

Direct Service is permitted.

(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) rakesh/ Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court