Gujarat High Court
Ismailbhai @ Rajubhai Abubhai Shama ( ... vs State Of Gujarat & on 24 July, 2015
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
R/CR.MA/14020/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 14020 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 ?
================================================================
ISMAILBHAI @ RAJUBHAI ABUBHAI SHAMA ( SINDHI MUSALMAN) &
5....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. AAMIR S PATHAN, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 6
MR LB DABHI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Date : 24/07/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1. Mr.Mahesh K. Poojara, learned advocate states that he has received instructions to appear on Page 1 of 7 R/CR.MA/14020/2015 JUDGMENT 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.2Complainant.
Considering the facts and circumstances in which the matter arises, it is being heard and decided finally, at this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. This application under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) has been preferred by the applicants with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR, being C.R.No.I33/2015, registered with Tarapur Police Station, Anand, on 19.04.2015, for offences punishable under Sections498(A), 306, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and resultant proceedings arising out of the above FIR.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of the daughter of the complainant took place with applicant No.1 on 18.12.2008 and two sons, aged five and three years were born from the said wedlock. It is alleged that applicant No.1 used to fight with the daughter of the complainant and Page 2 of 7 R/CR.MA/14020/2015 JUDGMENT demanded money from her. Further, he was not providing her with basic necessities. It is further alleged that applicant No.1 was having an extra marital relationship with a woman due to which quarrels used to take place between the husband and the wife. There are allegations regarding physical and mental torture inflicted by the applicants upon the daughter of the complainant. The daughter of the complainant took the extreme step on 19.04.2015. Under the circumstances, the FIR in question came to be registered.
4. It is the case of the applicants before this Court that now an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the applicants and the complainant, who is the father of the deceased. The children of applicant No.1 are residing with him and their share in the property shall be kept secured for them. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit, which is on record to the effect that the dispute has been amicably resolved by the intervention of the family members and friends and no grievance remains between him and the applicants, who belong to the same caste and community. As the applicants are taking care of the two minor sons of his daughter, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR Page 3 of 7 R/CR.MA/14020/2015 JUDGMENT in question is quashed and set aside and the criminal proceedings put to an end.
5. Mr.Aamir S. Pathan, learned advocate for the applicants submits that in view of the amicable settlement of the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 and as the misunderstanding and misconception due to which the FIR was lodged have been cleared and the children of applicant No.1 are being well looked after, the prayer made in the application may be granted, especially asrespondent No.2 no longer wants to proceed with the criminal prosecution and has no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
6. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the applicants 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 has objected to the prayer made by the applicants and respondent No.2 and submits that the law may be permitted to run its own Page 4 of 7 R/CR.MA/14020/2015 JUDGMENT course.
8. Mr.Mahesh K. Poojara, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the stand taken by the said respondent in the affidavit, affirmed by him on 22.07.2015, wherein it is stated that respondent No.2 no longer has any illwill and the grievance against the applicants. The dispute has been amicably resolved with the intervention of the family members and friends. Since the children of his daughter, aged five and three years are currently residing with the applicants, who are taking good care of them, respondent No.2 no longer wants to proceed with the criminal prosecution against the applicants and has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed and set aside .
9. The complainant is present in person. The complainant has been identified by Mr.Mahesh K. Poojara, learned advocate for respondent No.2. He has endorsed the stand taken by him in the affidavit.
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 Page 5 of 7 R/CR.MA/14020/2015 JUDGMENT 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 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.I33/2015, registered with Tarapur Police Station, Anand, on Page 6 of 7 R/CR.MA/14020/2015 JUDGMENT 19.04.2015, for offences punishable under Sections498(A), 306, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and resultant proceedings arising out of the above FIR, are hereby quashed and set aside.
The Jail Authority of Khambhat SubJail shall release applicant No.1Ismailbhai alias Rajubhai Abubhai Sharma, on receipt of a copy of this order, if not required in any other case.
14. The application is allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.
15. Direct Service is permitted.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) Gaurav+ Page 7 of 7