Gujarat High Court
Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana vs State Of Gujarat & on 3 July, 2014
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
R/CR.MA/9817/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 9817 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
================================================================
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?
================================================================
JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRENDRA BAHETI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. ALKESH N. SHAH, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR ALPESH RAJPURIYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
Page 1 of 6
R/CR.MA/9817/2014 JUDGMENT
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 03/07/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Virendra Baheti, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned APP for respondent No.1 - State and Mr. Alkesh Rajpuriya, learned advocate for respondent No.2. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 shall file Vakalatnama by 4.7.2014 in the Registry, which may be accepted.
2. Rule. Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 - State and Mr. Alkesh Rajpuriya, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2.
3. Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the applicant and respondent No.2 has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
4. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Page 2 of 6 R/CR.MA/9817/2014 JUDGMENT (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR bearing CR No.II72 of 2014 registered with Kirtimandir Police Station, Porbandar for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 506(2) and 504 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicant.
5. The learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicant. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that since the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.2 is resolved which arose because of some misunderstanding and due to intervention of trusted persons of the society, the dispute has been resolved. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. It is therefore Page 3 of 6 R/CR.MA/9817/2014 JUDGMENT submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code and allow the application as prayed for.
6. The learned APP has candidly submitted that in view of the fact that the applicant and respondent No.2 have amicably resolved the dispute, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
7. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 also relied upon the affidavit dated 3.7.2014 filed by respondent No.2 - Ketanbhai Jamnadas Dani, who happens to be advocate. Respondent No.2 is present in person before the Court and is identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 has tendered a photocopy of the identity card issued by the Bar Council of Gujarat, identifying Ketanbhai Jamnadas Dani, which is taken on record. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No.2 has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.2 arose because of some misunderstanding and due to intervention of trusted persons of the society, they have Page 4 of 6 R/CR.MA/9817/2014 JUDGMENT amicably resolved the issue and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law and Court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under Page 5 of 6 R/CR.MA/9817/2014 JUDGMENT Section 482 of the Code.
9. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing CR No.II72 of 2014 registered with Kirtimandir Police Station, Porbandar filed against the present applicant is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) mrp Page 6 of 6