1. Heard Mr. Virat Popat, learned advocate for the applicants, Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP for respondent No.1 and Mr. Jayprakash Umot, learned advocate for respondent No.2.
2. The applicants have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR bearing CR No.I305 of 2012 registered with Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad. It appears from the record that by the said FIR, respondent No.2 who happens to be wife of applicant No.1 lodged the said FIR for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 294B, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC.
3. Mr. Virat Popat, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that without admitting any of the contents and the allegations made in the FIR, in view of the fact that respondent No.2 and applicant No.1 who are husband and wife have reunited and at present are staying as husband and wife together and considering the affidavit which is filed on the record of this application, there is no possibility of any conviction and any further proceedings would be harassment to the applicants. Mr. Popat, therefore, submitted that this application may be allowed as prayed for. Mr. Popat further submitted that even though three of the offences are noncompoundable in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions and more particularly, a recent decision in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court may be pleased to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code in facts and circumstances of this case.
4. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP candidly submitted that as it is a matter of tender relations between applicant No.1 who is husband and respondent No.2– who is wife and as averred by respondent No.2, who is present in the Court, that she has no grievance left and therefore, the Court may pass appropriate orders. She, however, maintained that some of the offences are noncompoundable and therefore, the Court may not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code in view of the bar under Section 320 of the Code.
5. Mr. Jayprakash Umot, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the contentions raised by Mr. Popat, learned advocate for the applicants. Mr. Umot submitted that considering the affidavit filed in the present application, respondent No.2–original complainant does not desire to prosecute the said complaint and as such the original complainant has resolved the dispute amicably. Mr. Umot has also identified respondent No.2 who is present in the Court. She has in unequivocal terms has stated before the Court that she is staying as wife of applicant No.1 and what has been stated in the affidavit is in fact reiterated before this Court.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and on examining the decisions which are relied upon by the learned advocates in the case 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 and Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31 and Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 as well as considering the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the settlement arrived at between the applicant and respondent No.2, the impugned FIR be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code as to continue the criminal proceedings against the applicants would be unnecessarily harassment to the applicants and the same shall not be in the interest of the parties and more particularly considering the fact that respondent No.2 and applicant No.1 are at present staying as husband and wife.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the FIR bearing CR No.I305 of 2012 registered with Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 294B, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC as well as any further proceedings against the applicants in connection with the impugned FIR are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) mrpandya