Gujarat High Court
Dilipbhai Bhovanbhai Solanki & 2 vs State Of Gujarat & on 25 July, 2014
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
R/CR.MA/11373/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING &
SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 11373 of 2014
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Sd/
=====================================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
1 NO
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
Whether their Lordships wish to see the
3 NO
fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation
4 NO
of the constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
Whether it is to be circulated to the
5 NO
civil judge ?
=====================================================
DILIPBHAI BHOVANBHAI SOLANKI & 2....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
===================================================
Appearance:
MR PAWAN A BAROT, ADVOCATE for Applicant(s) No.13
MR ALKESH N. SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PB KHANDHERIA, ADVOCATE for Respondent(s) No. 2
===================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 25/07/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(1) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
(2) RULE. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service.
Page 1 of 6R/CR.MA/11373/2014 JUDGMENT (3) Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the parties has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
(4) By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the applicants original accused have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No.I3177 of 2014 registered at Gondal Police Station for the offences under Sections 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Gujarat Police Act as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R.
(5) Learned advocate for the applicants original accused has taken this Court through the allegations leveled in the impugned F.I.R. As per the facts mentioned in the application the F.I.R. came to be Page 2 of 6 R/CR.MA/11373/2014 JUDGMENT registered for the offence which was allegedly to have been committed on 16.07.2014 wherein allegation is pertaining to threat allegedly administered to respondent No.2 by the accused persons. It is submitted that now the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably and respondent No.2 has no grievance against the present applicants and accordingly a compromise is arrived at between the parties, which is also there on record.
Reliance is placed upon the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 dated 21.07.2014 wherein it is mentioned that because of intervention of the head of the society and family members now the dispute between the parties is amicably settled. It is categorically averred in the said affidavit that respondent No.2 does not want to further proceed in the matter and he has no objection if the F.I.R. in question is quashed.
(6) Learned advocate for the applicants original accused further submits that in view of the fact that the parties have Page 3 of 6 R/CR.MA/11373/2014 JUDGMENT amicably resolved the dispute any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. shall amount to harassment to the parties 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 and may quash the impugned F.I.R. as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R.
(7) Learned advocate for the respondent No.2, has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants original accused. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 is personally present in the court, who is identified by the learned advocate for respondent No.2.
On enquiry by this Court, respondent No.2 first informant, states that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromise deed dated 20.07.2014 is also executed to that effect which is also placed on record of the present proceedings and, therefore, the first informant states Page 4 of 6 R/CR.MA/11373/2014 JUDGMENT that he does not want to proceed further with the matter in connection with the impugned F.I.R.
(8) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondentState, candidly states that as the dispute between the parties has amicably resolved and, therefore, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
No other and further contentions are raised by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
(9) 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 ratio of 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, Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., 2009(1) GLH 190 as well as Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Page 5 of 6 R/CR.MA/11373/2014 JUDGMENT Panjab & Anr., 2014(2) Crimes 67 (SC), it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned F.I.R. against the applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants and would 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.
(10) For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No.I3177 of 2014 registered at Gondal Police Station as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R are hereby quashed and set aside.
(11) Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.
Sd/ [R.M.CHHAYA, J ] *** Bhavesh [pps]* Page 6 of 6