Gujarat High Court
Pratik Prakashbhai Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat on 27 June, 2022
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
R/SCR.A/4738/2019 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4738 of 2019
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4738 of 2019
==========================================================
PRATIK PRAKASHBHAI THAKKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NILAY SUCHAK for SAN ASSOCIATES LLP(8655) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1,2
MR MUKUND THAKKAR for MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Respondent
No. 2
MS MAITHILI MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 27/06/2022
ORAL ORDER
1 On 22.4.2022, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order in Criminal Misc. Application (for orders) No.1 of 2022:
"Heard learned Advocate Mr. Alok Thakkar for San Associates LLP for the applicants, learned APP Ms. M.D. Mehta for the respondent- State and learned Advocate Mr. Jatin Yadav for learned Advocate Mr. P.P.Majmudar for the respondent No.2- original complainant.
Learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar would submit that by way of the main application the applicants had sought for quashing of FIR being Page 1 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:12:27 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/4738/2019 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2022 C.R.No.I- 16 of 2019 registered with Aagthala Police Station, District Banaskantha, on 20.04.2019, for offences punishable under Sections 354(D) (1)(i), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.
Learned Advocate would submit that while the FIR inter alia alleged that the applicants herein used to threaten and follow the prosecutrix, but in reality, according to the learned Advocate, the prosecutrix and the applicant No.1 were having love affair and whereas since the same was not to the liking of the family members, the impinged FIR had been filed.
Learned Advocate would submit that as a matter of fact subsequent to filing of the FIR on 23.08.2021 the applicant No.1 and the prosecutrix have got married and whereas the prosecutrix is at present residing with the applicants. Learned Advocate would draw the attention of this Court to deposition of the prosecutrix before the learned Special (POCSO) Court, Banaskantha at Deodar and whereas learned Advocate would submit that the prosecutrix has completely rescinded from the allegations made against the applicants in the FIR. Learned Advocate would further submit that as such the complainant of the impugned complaint being Page 2 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:12:27 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/4738/2019 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2022 father of the prosecutrix was opposed to the relationship and whereas the FIR had been filed just with a view to harass the present applicants.
Learned Advocate would further submit that the prosecutrix is present before this Court and whereas apart from filing of the affidavit wherein she had confirmed the fact of marriage between herself and the applicant No.1, the facts may be independently verified from her. At the request of this Court, learned APP Ms. Mehta has interacted with the prosecutrix and whereas according to the learned APP, the prosecutrix confirms that she has got married applicant No.1. and whereas she would not have any objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.
As against the same, learned APP Ms. Mehta would submit that since serious allegations have been made in the FIR concerned, the investigation papers would be required to be perused. Learned Advocate Mr. Yadav for the respondent No.2 would also support the submissions of the learned APP.
Having regard to the same, Registry is directed to list this application along with the main matter on 29.04.2022. On the next date, appropriate instructions shall be called for by the learned APP.Page 3 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:12:27 IST 2022
R/SCR.A/4738/2019 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2022 Presence of the prosecutrix is dispensed with."
2 Thereafter, on 29.4.2022, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order in Special Criminal Application No.4738 of 2019 with Criminal Misc. Application (for orders) No.1 of 2022:
"Heard learned Advocate Mr. Alok Thakkar for San Associates on behalf of the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili D. Mehta on behalf of respondent no.1- State and learned Advocate Mr.Mukund Thakkar for learned Advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar on behalf of the respondent no.2- original complainant.
Learned APP would submit that as such the verification as was to be done as observed vide order dated 22.04.2022 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2022 appears not to be done since the learned APP has no instructions from the Investigating Officer.
As against the same learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar for learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar would submit that the respondent no.2 is personally present before this Court and whereas he does not have any instruction with regard to any settlement between the parties.Page 4 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:12:27 IST 2022
R/SCR.A/4738/2019 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2022 Having regard to the fact that while the petitioner no.1 and the prosecutrix are stated to have got married and whereas since the respondent no. 2 happens to be the father of the prosecutrix, this Court is of the considered opinion that an attempt to resolve this issue has to be made.
Having regard to the same let the Medication Center attached to the Gujarat High Court attempt to mediate the dispute between the parties. Learned Advocate for the respective parties shall co-ordinate with regard to the date to be fixed by the Mediation Center as the first date when all the parties would be present. The report of Mediation Committee shall be submitted before this Court by 27.06.2022.
Meanwhile the petitioner no. 1 is permitted to move an application for adjournment before the learned Special (POCSO) Court, Banaskantha at Deodar where the trial with regard to the Special Case arising from the FIR is pending. Learned Special Court shall consider such application having regard to the fact that the present petition is pending before this Court.
Let this matter be listed on 27.06.2022."
3 The mediation took place between the parties and the Mediator submitted the report on Page 5 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:12:27 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/4738/2019 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2022 13.6.2022, which reads as under:
"Captioned matter was referred to the Mediation Centre vide order dated 29.04.2022 (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nikhil S. Kariel). The dispute was discussed at length with the parties on today i.e. 13.06.2022.
After discussing the dispute at length, the parties have successfully agreed to resolve their dispute amicably. The parties have resolved their dispute as per the settlement terms attached herewith.
The mediation is successful in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Therefore, it is humbly requested to submit the said terms of settlement to the Registry of the High Court with request to place the aforesaid matter before the Hon'ble Court for appropriate order".
4 The aforesaid report was placed on record vide communication dated 13.6.2022 by the In-charge Coordinator, High Court Mediation Center. During the mediation, the issue has been amicably settled between the parties on the basis of MoU arrived at between the applicant and original complainant. The same is forming part of report of the In-charge Coordinator, High Court Mediation Center.
Page 6 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:12:27 IST 2022R/SCR.A/4738/2019 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2022 5 Now, in this backdrop, the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R.No.I/16 of 2019 registered with Aagthala Police Station, Banaskantha for the offence punishable under Sections 354(D)(1)(i), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
6 Today, Mr.Nilay Suchak for the petitioners and Mr.Mukund Thakkar, learned advocate for Mr.P.P.Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 have jointly submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and in view of the report dated 13.6.2022 submitted by the Mediator, the impugned complaint and consequential proceedings to the complaint be quashed and set aside.
7 Considering the fact that the complaint is registered for the offence punishable under POCSO Act, this Court inquired from Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned APP about the contents of the complaint and whether there is anything more than what is stated in the complaint or not. Learned APP, upon instructions, states that except for the fact that the present applicant used to follow the daughter of the complainant and threatened her to kill if she is not agreeable to marry the applicant, there is nothing in the complaint which would attract the offence under Page 7 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:12:27 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/4738/2019 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2022 the POCSO Act.
8 Hence taking note of the aforesaid facts as well as in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court has inquired from the complainant - Subhashbhai Ramlal Thakkar, who is present before the Court and identified by learned advocate Mr.Mukund Thakkar. The complainant stated before the Court that settlement has arrived at between the parties as stated in the report of the Mediator dated 13.6.2022, and therefore, he does not have any objection if the complaint is quashed.
9 Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present case and 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) 6 SCC 466, it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. 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 Page 8 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:12:27 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/4738/2019 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2022 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 Section 482 of the Code.
10 For the reasons recorded above and in view of the consent of the complainant, who is present before the Court, which was confirmed orally as well as by way of an affidavit that the dispute is settled between the parties and the complainant does not have any objection if the FIR is quashed, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing further with the proceedings. Therefore, the present application is required to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed.
11 In view of the above, the impugned FIR being C.R.No.I/16 of 2019 registered with Aagthala Police Station, Banaskantha and consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.
Consequently, connected application stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) P. SUBRAHMANYAM Page 9 of 9 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:12:27 IST 2022