Gujarat High Court
Ketan Navinchandra Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat & on 11 February, 2014
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
R/CR.MA/1821/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 1821 of 2014
================================================================
KETAN NAVINCHANDRA BHATT....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH J PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
MS SJ SHAIKH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No.2-Complainant
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 11/02/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned counsel Ms.S.J.Shaikh states that she has instructions to appear for respondent No.2complainant and undertakes to file the vakalatnama of respondent No.2. Permission is granted.
2. RULE. Respondents waive service. Considering the short dispute and settlement between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, by consent rule is heard today.
3. A complaint under Sections 363, 366 and subsequently an addition of Section 376 of Indian Penal Code was sought. Ultimately the petitioner married to the victim, as a consequence of which, the matter is now settled. Learned counsel appearing for the parties state that the matter is settled between the petitioners and Page 1 of 2 R/CR.MA/1821/2014 ORDER the respondent No.2.
4. Learned APP while vehemently opposing the quashing of the FIR would contend that the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature and would require trial.
5. The dispute predominantly appears to be of private character and in view of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303], such dispute, even if not compoundable, can be compounded under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, the argument made by learned APP cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that when the dispute is predominantly of a private character and the complainant having decided against supporting the prosecution case, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the trial, which may cause wastage of public time, money and energy. Under the circumstances, the complaint and all other connected proceedings are quashed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Direct Service is permitted.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) syed/ Page 2 of 2