Gujarat High Court
Sajidkhan Azijkhan Pathan vs State Of Gujarat on 21 June, 2018
Author: P.P.Bhatt
Bench: P.P.Bhatt
R/CR.MA/9155/2018 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9155 of 2018
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 7479 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.BHATT
=============================================
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 or any order made thereunder ?
============================================= SAJIDKHAN AZIJKHAN PATHAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ============================================= Appearance:
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR DILIP B RANA for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 MS JIRGA D JHAVERI APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.BHATT Date : 21/06/2018 COMMON JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned advocate appearing for respondent no.2-complainant waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.Page 1 of 5
R/CR.MA/9155/2018 JUDGMENT
2. 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 applicants and respondent No.2-
complainant has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
3. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I - 105 of 2015 registered with City Police Station, Valsad, Dist. Valsad for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498(A)(B), 313, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as further proceedings of Sessions Case No.87 of 2016 registered in the Court of 2nd Additional (Adhoc) District and Sessions Judge, Valsad and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicants.
4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
5. Learned advocate for the applicants has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. It is further submitted that after filing of this application, applicants and respondent No.2 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 applicants. It is further submitted that the complainant is also present before this Court and she has also admitted the Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/9155/2018 JUDGMENT factum of compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties and submitted that she has no objections if the FIR in question as well as proceedings of Sessions Case No.87 of 2016 is ordered to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed compromise deed in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society. As per the said compromise deed, maintenance part is also taken care of and out of the total amount of Rs.12,00,000/-, 50% amount is paid to the complainant and the remaining 50% be paid after disposal of the proceedings which is pending before the Trial Court. 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 submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code and allow the application as prayed for.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that prima facie case is made out on the basis of the FIR, but since the matter is settled between the applicants and respondent no.2-complainant outside the Court and the complainant is also represented by learned advocate for the complainant who categorically states before this Court that she has no objection if the appropriate order is passed for quashing and setting aside the FIR.
7. Learned advocate for respondent No.2-complainant has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 also Page 3 of 5 R/CR.MA/9155/2018 JUDGMENT relied upon the compromise deed filed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is present in person before the Court and is identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No.2 has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 is resolved with a free view due to intervention of trusted persons of the society and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed.
8. Regard being had to the above submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances and more particularly the factum of compromise admitted by the complainant, who is present before this Court and FIR as well as proceedings of Sessions Case is ordered to be quashed and set aside and considering the assurance given by the accused persons that no such act will be committed by them as also considering 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 applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. I have also considered the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No.1723 Page 4 of 5 R/CR.MA/9155/2018 JUDGMENT of 2017 dated 4.10.2017 and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, particularly paragraph 15. Considering the nature of disputes between the parties which are all private in nature, I am of the opinion that the matter requires consideration. 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 hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code.
9. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I - 105 of 2015 registered with City Police Station, Valsad, Dist. Valsad as well as proceedings of Sessions Case No.87 of 2016 registered before the Court of 2nd Additional (Adhoc) District and Sessions Judge, Valsad is hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. are also quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute.
Direct service is permitted.
(P.P.BHATT, J) NEHA Page 5 of 5