Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Vijaydasji Mahant vs State Of Gujarat & on 22 July, 2015
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
R/CR.MA/13912/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 13912 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
BHARATBHAI VIJAYDASJI MAHANT....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. N D NANAVATY, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR YASH N NANAVATY,
ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. L B DABHI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Date : 22/07/2015
Page 1 of 7
R/CR.MA/13912/2015 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Rule. Mr. L B Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of Rule, for respondent No.1State of Gujarat. Mr. Hardik A Dave, learned advocate, states that he has received instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2 and would be filing his Vakalatnama in the Registry, during the course of the day. He is permitted to do so. He waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is being heard and finally, at this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2 This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred with the prayer to quash and set aside the First Information Report being C.R. No.I94/2015 registered with the University Police Station, Ahmedabad, on 11.07.2015, for the offences punishable under Sections 354 of the Indian Penal Code, read with section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989.
Page 2 of 7
R/CR.MA/13912/2015 JUDGMENT
3 The case of the prosecution is to the following
effect:
On 10 July 2015, the prosecutrix was at her
room along with her friendKiran Odedara. At about 16:30 hours, the petitioner came to the room and started talking to them. Later, the petitioner allegedly asked Kiran Odedara to bring a cup of tea for him, and therefore she left the room. Taking advantage of the situation, the petitioner allegedly molested the Prosecutrix. It is further alleged that the petitioner continued the said behaviour forcibly. It is alleged that though the Prosecutrix made a hue and cry, the wardenNiruben did not came inside, though she was allegedly standing outside the room. It is further alleged that as soon as Kiran Odedara came into the room, the petitioner allegedly released the prosecutrix, had a cup of tea, and then left. It is further alleged that the prosecutors informed her friend and the warden about the incident but the warden asked the prosecutrix to keep silent over the issue. The prosecutrix allegedly informed her fellow hostellers namely Bijal Patel, Sangeeta Patel and Page 3 of 7 R/CR.MA/13912/2015 JUDGMENT Jalpa Sadhu on phone. It is alleged that the prosecutrix informed her mother on the next day. The parents of the prosecutrix then came to the hostel to register the impugned FIR.
4 It is the case of the applicant before this Court, that now the matter has been amicably settled between him and respondent No.2(complainant), who has filed an affidavit in this regard stating that the First Information Report has been filed on the spur of moment. But now, the dispute has been settled with the intervention of the members of the society and family members of both sides. Respondent No.2 has no objection if the First Information Report in question is quashed and set aside.
5 Mr. N D Nanavaty, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Yash N Nanavaty, learned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that in view of amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties and as respondent No.2, no longer wants to proceed with the criminal proceedings and has no objection to the quashing of the First Information Report, the prayer made in the petition may be granted.
Page 4 of 7
R/CR.MA/13912/2015 JUDGMENT 6 In support of his submissions, learned advocate
for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported in (2008)4 SCC 582 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303.
7 Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1, submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the Court may pass appropriate orders.
8 Mr.Hardik A Dave, learned advocate for respondent No.2, has reiterated the stand of the complainant, as expressed in the affidavit filed on her behalf, affirmed on 18.07.2015, wherein, it is stated that the First Information Report was filed due to misunderstanding and misconception on the spur of the moment. Now the matter has been amicably settled between them with the intervention of members of the society and family members of both sides and has also submitted that respondent No.2 no longer desires to continue with the criminal proceedings and has no Page 5 of 7 R/CR.MA/13912/2015 JUDGMENT objection to the quashing of the First Information Report.
9 Respondent No.2, is present inperson in the Court and has been identified by Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate.
10 This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments made in the application as well as the contents of the affidavit.
11 In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra), the Supreme Court has held that it is advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the courts should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings, since keeping the matter alive, with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution, is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford. The time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. 12 This position of law has been reiterated in a more recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Page 6 of 7 R/CR.MA/13912/2015 JUDGMENT of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another (supra).
13 In view of settlement between the parties and considering the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another (supra), the following order is passed:
The complaint, being C.R. No.I94/2015 registered with the University Police Station, Ahmedabad, on 11.07.2015, for the offences punishable under Sections 354 of the Indian Penal Code, read with section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, is hereby quashed and set aside.
14 The application is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.
Direct Service is permitted.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) Bimal Page 7 of 7