Gujarat High Court
Ketankumar Ramabhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat & on 21 January, 2015
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
R/CR.MA/1282/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 1282 of 2015
================================================================
KETANKUMAR RAMABHAI PARMAR....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MAULIN G PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR CHIRAG PAREKH for respondent No.2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 21/01/2015
ORAL ORDER
1 Mr. Chirag Parekh, learned Advocate, states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2 - original complainant. He is permitted to file his appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. The complainant as well as the daughter i.e. prosecutrix are present in the Court and have been identified by Mr. Parekh.
2 RULE. Learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi for respondent No.1 - State and Mr. Chirag Parekh, learned Advocate, for the respondent No.2 original Complainant, waive service of rule on behalf of the respective parties. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3 By way of filing the present application under Section482
Page 1 of 5
R/CR.MA/1282/2015 ORDER
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed for quashing of the FIR registered at CR No. I 94 of 2014 with Unza Police Station, District Mehsana, for the offenses punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section4 of the POSCO Act, 2012, on the ground that the complainant and the applicant have reached an amicable settlement outside the court. It appears that the settlement arrived at between the parties is genuine one.
4 Mr. Chirag Parekh, learned Advocate, appearing for the original complainant has also stated that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the complainant does not have any grievance against the applicant and, therefore, he has no objection if the FIR registered at CR No. I94 of 2014 with Unza Police Station, District Mehsana, is quashed and set aside against the present applicant. He further states that an affidavit annexed with the application is affirmed by the private respondent-prosecutrix, who is now attained the age of majority. She states that she is carrying pregnancy and residing with her inlaws 5 Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate for the applicant 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. Chirag Parekh, learned advocate for respondent No.2 prosecutrix. He would submit that the whatever has been submitted by the applicant and whatever has been mentioned in Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/1282/2015 ORDER the affidavit dated 18.01.2015 filed by the prosecutrix are correct. He has also identified the prosecutrix, who is present in the Court. He would further submit that the prosecutrix has no objection, if the FIR and the subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and set aside.
7 Mr. Dabhi, learned APP, has opposed this application since the present applicant is facing charge for the offence is registered under Section376 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 Paragraph61 of the judgment 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 victim's 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 I have heard learned advocate for the respective parties, perused the papers of investigation, FIR and affidavit filed by the prosecutrix. The affidavit filed by prosecutrix dated 18.01.2015 reads as under:
I have gone through the application filed by the applicant and I say that the complaint was registered due to the misunderstanding on both the part. I got irked at the time of lodging of the FIR.
That I and the present petitioner entered into wedlock on 12.7.2014 as per the Hindu ritual. We both are belonging from the same caste and, therefore, both the family have accepted the said marriage and as per wish of myself and all my family members, I am residing at Ahmedabad with the family of the present petitioner.
That I have attained the age of majority and completed Page 3 of 5 R/CR.MA/1282/2015 ORDER the age of 18 years and I accept my marriage with the present petitioner and, therefore, I want to reside with the present petitioner. I submit that from the wedlock with the present petitioner, I am having pregnancy of three months and family members of the present petitioners are taking my care.
It is also submitted that the dispute between the parties are amicably settled and the complainant has no grievance regarding the alleged incident against the present petitioner.
Subsequently, we both are decided to settle the issue amicably. I say that I have no objection if the FIR at AnnexureA registered with Unza Police Station, DistrictMehsana, vide CR No. I94 of 2013 under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and Section4 of the POSCO Act and further proceedings of the same is quahed and prayer made by the applicant in the present application is granted by this Hon'ble Court.
9 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 offenses of mental depravity or offenses 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. In the present case, even if the Page 4 of 5 R/CR.MA/1282/2015 ORDER allegations are looked into, the prosecutrix and the accused persons are married and are living with their spouses and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present application is allowed. The FIR being CR No. I94 of 2014 lodged with Unza Police Station, DistrictMehsana along with all the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant and be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other offence.
10 Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(A.J.DESAI, J.) pnnair Page 5 of 5