Varunsinh Umedsinh Dhummad & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Anr

Hasmukh D. Suthar, J

Learned advocate Mr. Jigar I. Salvi states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

RULE. Learned advocates waive service of note of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), the petitioners has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.11191028230263 of 2023 registered with Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punisable under Sections 498-A, 323, 294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit dated 29.02.2024 which is taken on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the petitioners has been resolved amicably and that she has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.

The impugned FIR was filed at the instance of respondent No.2 – original complainant due to matrimonial dispute with the petitioners but now the parties have amicably settled the dispute and have once again started a happy married life and complainant has stated in her affidavit of settlement that the bitterness and misunderstanding between her and accused are removed and she is having good relationship with the accused persons.

In the aforesaid backdrop, complaint is filed. It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.

Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) as also considering the fact that matrimonial disputed between the parties is resolved amicably and complainant has once again started her married life with the husband and is living with accused persons and as the dispute is private in nature and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioners in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..

In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR being CR No.11191028230263 of 2023 registered with Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad City as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners herein. Direct service is permitted. If the petitioners are in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the petitioners forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. Direct service is permitted.