Shilpaben Chaudhary vs State of Gujarat and 1 Another

R.M. Chhaya, J.—Heard Mr. Hardik H. Dave, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, and Mr. Hardik H. Pandit, learned advocate for respondent No. 2-first informant/original complainant. By way of the present application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the applicant has prayed for quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No. I-338 of 2012 registered with Pethapur Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).

Learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court to the factual matrix arising out of the F.I.R. and has submitted that the allegations leveled against the present applicant are not true and the same are made in heated moment. It is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and, therefore, any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. shall amount to harassment to the applicant. It is further submitted that even in the case of another accused this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code, has quashed the F.I.R. qua that applicant mainly based on the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the issue being Criminal Misc. Application No. 14261 of 2013, which came to be allowed vide order dated 13.09.2013. It is therefore submitted that in view of the fact that the parties resolved the issue and this Court has already quashed the F.I.R. qua the other accused, the trial would be futile and the same would also amount to abuse of process of law and court and, therefore, it is submitted that in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court may quash the impugned F.I.R. as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R.

Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, candidly states that as the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

Mr. Hardik H. Pandit, learned advocate for respondent No. 2-first informant/original complainant, reiterates the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant. Reliance is also placed upon the order dated 13.09.2013 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14261/13.

It may be noted that respondent No. 2-first informant/original complainant was personally present on 19.11.2013 and this Court, after hearing Mr. Rushab Shah, learned advocate, for Mr. Hardik H. Dave, learned advocate for the applicant, has recorded the following order on that date:

Learned advocates for the applicant have filed leave notes. Mr. Rushab Shah, learned advocate, states that he has instructions on behalf of the learned advocates for the applicant to appear on behalf of the applicant.

Learned advocates for the parties state that the applicant and respondent No. 2-first informant have amicably resolved the issue.

Mr. Hardik H. Pandit, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2, states that respondent No. 2-Smt. Sweety M. Vaghela, is personally present in the court and a photocopy of the voter slip of respondent No. 2 is tendered, which is taken on record.

On making inquiry, respondent No. 2 states that the dispute has been amicably settled.

As the learned advocates for the applicant have filed leave notes, S.O. to 26.11.2013.

Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till then.

In view of the aforesaid statement made by respondent No. 2-first informant in person, her presence on the next date of hearing is dispensed with.

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 decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, as well as in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others, it appears that further continuation of the criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned F.I.R. against the applicant-original accused would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant and the trial would be futile and would also amount to abuse of process of law and court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned F.I.R. as well as all other proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. are required to be quashed in exercise of power u/s 482 of the Code.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No. I-338 of 2012 registered with Pethapur Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.