Gujarat High Court
Dashrathba Bapalal Jadeja & 2 vs State Of Gujarat & on 7 March, 2014
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
R/CR.MA/3631/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 3631 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 ?
================================================================
DASHRATHBA BAPALAL JADEJA & 2....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MB GOHIL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 3
MR DHAVAL V SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 07/03/2014
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.MA/3631/2014 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Considering the short dispute and settlement between the parties, Rule is heard today by consent of the parties.
2. Learned counsel appearing for settling parties have identified their respective parties and state that the matter is settled between the parties for which respondent No.2- complainant has filed affidavits. The same are ordered to be taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent would thus urge this Court to quash the FIR in view of the settlement.
3. A marital discord between the complainant's daughter and the petitioners who are her in-laws, gave rise to the FIR being I- C.R.No.36 of 2014 in Anjar Police Station alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A and 114 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") as also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, Section 306 of IPC was also added.
4. The complainant has filed two affidavits stating that the FIR was filed by him in the fit of the moment and due to intervention of the elders of the society, there remains no grievance between the petitioners and the complainant and that he is not willing to prosecute the petitioners. In response to the query put by this Court, the complainant pleaded ignorance about the contents of the FIR.
5. Learned APP while vehemently opposing the quashing of the FIR would contend that the offences alleged against the petitioners are serious in nature and would require trial.
Page 2 of 3R/CR.MA/3631/2014 JUDGMENT
6. In above view of the matter, though the matter arising under Section 306 of IPC can be considered to be serious, in view of the stand taken by the complainant, it appears that allowing the trial in such a case would only result into wastage of public time, money and energy. 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. Under the circumstances, the complaint and all other connected proceedings are quashed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
Direct Service is permitted.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) rakesh/ Page 3 of 3