Chandrasinh Dansinh Chavada and Another vs State of Gujarat and Others

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—The applicants, who have been named as accused in FIR being I.CR. No. 73 of 2005 registered with Dhrangadhra city Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 467, 468, 469, 471 of IPC have approached this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking quashment of the said FIR for the reasons stated in the memo of petition.

The complainant - Respondent No. 3, who happens to be the father of applicant No. 2 had to lodge complaint alleging that the accused No. 1 had induced the daughter of the complainant and projected her as a major and created forged documents as if the marriage had taken place and registered the same and committed an offences mentioned in the FIR. The complainant had filed writ petition being Special Criminal Application No. 1042 of 2005, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Anil R. Dave & MD Shah, JJ..) on 18.10.2005 passed the following order:

Learned advocate Shri J.K. Shah has appeared and has submitted that he has instructions to appear for Respondent No. 3. It has been submitted by him that Snehal, daughter of the Petitioner as well as wife of Respondent No. 3, is present inteh Court and he has requested that the petition be taken up for hearing today. He has further submitted that learned advocate Shri Hriday Buch appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned APP Shri L.R. Pujari appearing for Respondent No. 1 have no objection if the petition is taken up for hearing today.

The aforestated three advocates have submitted that they have no objection if the petition is heard today and, therefore, the petition is taken up for hearing today.

Snehal, daughter of the Petitioner, is present in the Court and she has submitted that she has married Respondent No. 3. It has been further submitted by her that she had gone with Respondent No. 3 willingly, and has also married him.

In the aforesaid circumstances, learned advocate Shri Hriday Buch has prayed for some time for taking instructions from the Petitioner. In pursuance of the request made by learned advocate Shri Hriday Buch, hearing is adjourned to 26th October, 2005.

Shri Buch submitted that, thereafter said matter is disposed of.

The fact remains to be noted that the daughter of the complainant and accused applicant No. 1 have been residing together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock a child is born. The decision passed by the Apex Court in case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, is relied upon for quashment of the said complaint.

The Court is of the opinion that the requirement of Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is to do substantial justice also and in the case on hand, this Court is of the considered view that the complainant being aggrieved of the fact that his daughter has married against his will, he has filed complaint. The quashment of the complaint would in fact permit the parties to leave peacefully and without any sense of animosity interse, whereas, non-quashment of the complaint, at logical end would result into tremendous hardship upon the parties especially the accused and daughter of the complainant. The act complained of is the inducement of the complainant''s daughter and her marriage with applicant No. 1. The entire tenor of the complaint, in my view would go to show that the complainant was really aggrieved as it is stated hereinabove, on account of accused marrying his daughter against his will. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Lata Singh (supra), I am of the view that when parties have been settled in life and complaint has not been investigated since 2005, as there is an interim order passed by this Court on 28.10.2005, quashment of the complainant would serve the end of justice. Accordingly, the complaint being I.CR. No. 73 of 2005 registered at Dhrangadhra City Police Station, Surendranagar is hereby quashed. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.