Gujarat High Court
Ankit vs State on 19 February, 2013
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
ANKIT ANANTBHAI DESAIV/SSTATE OF GUJARAT R/CR.MA/1731/2013 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 1731 of 2013 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Sd/- ===================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 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 ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ===================================================== ANKIT ANANTBHAI DESAI & 2....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s) =================================================== Appearance: MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, for MR PARTHIV B SHAH, ADVOCATE for Applicant(s) No.1-3 MS MOXA THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Date : 07/05/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Mr.Tirthraj Pandya, learned advocate for the applicants-original accused and Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. Though served none appears for respondent No.2-first informant.
By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the applicants have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-8 of 2012 registered at Mahila Police Station, Anand for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) as well as Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
This Court (Coram: K.M.Thaker, J) while admitting the matter vide order dated 19.02.2013 has observed thus:
1. Heard Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned advocate for Mr. Parthiv B. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners.
2. The respondent No.2 -
Ms. Mittalben is present in the Court.
3. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned advocate for Mr.Parthiv B. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the alleged offence is about matrimonial dispute and now the petitioners and respondent No.2 have arrived at a settlement.
3.1 He also submitted that before learned Trial Court a Consent Divorce Application is finalized and in the said proceedings respondent No.2 has filed pursis signed by her and she has admitted the settlement.
3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioners also relied on the document at annexure-B (page 12) which purports to be a receipt acknowledging that the ornaments and other jewelry being stridhan have been returned to respondent No.2.
3.3 The respondent No.2 has admitted the factum of the settlement and submitted that she has no objection if the request made in the petition is granted.
4. So as to ascertain the factual position from respondent No.2, learned APP was requested to ask the respondent No.2 about her response to the petitioners request and respondent No.2 informed learned APP that a settlement is arrived at between her and the petitioners and she have no objection if the request made in the petition is granted.
5. Therefore, below mentioned order is passed:-
Rule. Ms. Raval, learned APP waives service of Notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.
It would be open to the learned advocate for the petitioners and respondent to make request to the Hon'ble Court, where the petition under Section 482 of the Code are assigned for final hearing as per present roster, for early hearing of present petition.
The respondent No.2 Mittalben shall remain present before the Hon'ble Court when the matter is taken up for hearing so that Hon'ble Court may inquire directly from her about her response at the time of final hearing.
Mr.Tirthraj Pandya, learned advocate for the applicants-original accused, has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. along with other proceedings were filed by respondent No.2 before the civil court. Denying the averments made in the impugned F.I.R. it is submitted that as such applicant No.1 and the first informant have separated and a decree of divorce is passed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the competent court civil court. It is submitted that the parties, being near relatives, with intervention of the elders, have resolved the dispute, which was more of a civil and domestic nature. It is submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and more particularly considering the order dated 09.11.2012 passed by 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anand in H.M.P. No.95 of 2012, any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. shall amount to harassment to the applicants and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties trial would be futile and the same would also amount to abuse of process of law and court and, therefore, it is submitted that in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, quash the impugned F.I.R. as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R.
Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State, has submitted, on instructions from the investigating officer, who is present in the court, that as the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
It may be noted that as per order dated 19.02.2013 passed by this Court (Coram: K.M.Thaker, J) respondent No.2 was to remain personally present before this Court even at the stage of final hearing. At the time of earlier hearing learned advocate for the applicants submitted that though informed respondent No.2 has not remained present and, therefore, vide order dated 01.03.2013 this Court thought it fit to request the learned advocate for the applicants to intimate respondent No.2 about the next date of hearing and accordingly the matter was adjourned to 20.03.2013, which, as per the record, is served upon respondent No.2. Even thereafter, on 20.03.2013, fresh rule was issued to respondent No.2 and the matter was kept on 05.04.2013. It further appears that by communication dated 09.04.2013 respondent No.2 was informed by learned advocate for the applicants, at the request of the court, that the matter was fixed for final hearing on 29.04.2013. Even on that day respondent No.2 was not present and, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 29.04.2013 and learned advocate for the applicants was to intimate respondent No.2 about the next date of hearing.
In spite of several efforts mentioned hereinabove, today also, none appears on behalf of respondent No.2, respondent No.2 is also not present.
Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State, has further submitted that as per the oral directions issued by this Court a statement of respondent No.2 came to be recorded on 04.05.2013 wherein respondent No.2 has stated that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and it is further stated that on 19.02.2013 respondent No.2 had remained present and made a statement before this Court, which is reproduced hereinabove.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as considering the the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 S.C.C. 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, 2008(4) S.C.C. 582, Nikhil Merchant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2009(1) GLH 31 as well as in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., 2009(1) GLH 190, it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned F.I.R. against the applicants-original accused would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants and the trial would be futile and would also amount to abuse of process of law and court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned F.I.R. is required to be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-8 of 2012 registered at Mahila Police Station, Anand as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R are hereby quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Sd/-
[R.M.CHHAYA, J ] *** Bhavesh* Page 7 of 7