Heard Mr.Ashvin M. Panchal, learned advocate for the applicants, Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Mr.Nisarg M. Desai, learned advocate for respondent No.2-original complainant.
By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the applicants have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-240 of 2012 registered at Vastrapur Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad for the offences under Sections 498A, 294B, 323, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Criminal Case No.7585 of 2012 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R.
The impugned F.I.R. came to be registered by respondent No.2-first informant, who happens to be wife of applicant No.1 and daughter-in-law of applicant Nos.2 and 3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. by respondent No.2 that after 20 days of her marriage with applicant No.1 some differences were cropped up between the present applicants and respondent No.2 and ultimately on 18.04.2011 applicant No.1 asked for divorce from respondent No.2. Allegations of harassment are also alleged in the impugned F.I.R.
Mr.Ashvin M. Panchal, learned advocate for the applicants, has taken this Court to the factual matrix arising out of the present application. It is submitted that the applicants and respondent No.2 have settled the dispute amicably. It is submitted that as such the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. are not true, however, in view of the fact that the parties concerned have amicably resolved the dispute, any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. shall amount to harassment to the parties. It is also submitted that in view of the fact that applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 were husband-wife and now they have amicably resolved the dispute, the trial would be futile and the same would also amount to abuse of process of law and court.
Attention was also invited to the affidavit dated 27.12.2012, which is tendered on record of the present application by respondent No.2 and it is submitted that the first informant has declared before this Court that the dispute is amicably resolved between the parties concerned. Reliance was also placed upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675 and it is submitted that in order secure the ends of justice, this Court may quash the impugned F.I.R. as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R.
Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State, candidly states that in view of the fact that the dispute between husband, in-laws and daughter-in-law is resolved, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
Mr.Nisarg M. Desai, learned advocate for respondent No.2-original complainant, reiterates the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. It is submitted that in fact applicant No.1 and respondent No.2-first informant had filed an application for divorce before the competent court at Karnal being H.M.A. Case No.86 of 2012 under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage the Apex Court, 1955. A photocopy of the judgment rendered by the competent court at Karnal dated 01.02.2013 is also placed on record whereby the application of applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 stands dissolved. It may be noted that even in the said judgment a copy of the compromise deed of applicant No.1 and respondent No.2, having settled the dispute amicably is part of the said judgment.
It is further submitted that respondent No.2-first informant is personally present in the court, who is identified by the learned advocate for respondent No.2.
On enquiry by this Court, respondent No.2-first informant states that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and an affidavit to this effect is also placed on record of the present proceedings and, therefore, the original complainant states that she does not want to proceed further with the matter in connection with the impugned F.I.R. and she has no objections if the impugned F.I.R. as well as other proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. are quashed.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application, considering aforesaid decision as well as considering the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 S.C.C. 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, 2008(4) S.C.C. 582, Nikhil Merchant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2009(1) GLH 31 as well as in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., 2009(1) GLH 190, it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned F.I.R. against the applicants-original accused would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. It appears that trial would be futile and further continuance of the criminal proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. would amount to abuse of process of law and court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned F.I.R. is required to be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R.
No.I-240 of 2012 registered at Vastrapur Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad and Criminal Case No.7585 of 2012 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Sd/-
[R.M.CHHAYA, J ] *** Bhavesh* Page 6 of 6