Date : 10/10/2017 ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Learned advocate Mr.Dharmesh Patel states that he has an instructions to appear for the respondent No.2 complainant. He is permitted to file his appearance forthwith.
2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
3. Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the applicants and respondent No.2 has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
4. By way of this application under section 482 of the code of R/CR.MA/17358/2015 ORDER Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.I 89 of 2015 registered with Talod Police Station, Sabarkantha, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498A, 323, 506(2), 114, etc. of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 7, etc. of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicants.
5. Learned advocate for the applicants has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicants. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. It is therefore submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers conferred under section 482 of the code and allow the application as prayed for.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the present application and submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint in question may not be quashed and the present application may be rejected.
7. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 also relied upon the affidavit R/CR.MA/17358/2015 ORDER filed by respondent No.2 dated 10.10.2017. Respondent No.2 is present in person before the Court and is identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No.2 has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as Affidavit filed by the complainant. I have also taken into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. I have also considered the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 dated 4.10.2017 and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, particularly paragraph 15. Considering the nature of disputes between the parties which are all private in nature, I am of the opinion that the matter requires consideration. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the R/CR.MA/17358/2015 ORDER impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under section 482 of the code.
9. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.I 89 of 2015 registered with Talod Police Station, Sabarkantha, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498A, 323, 506(2), 114, etc. of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 7, etc. of Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. are also quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. [A.J.DESAI, J.] *dipti
Comments