Upon the joint request made by the learned advocates for the parties, both the matters are taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR being I-CR No.217 of 2011 registered with Ghatlodia Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 114 of the IPC and under sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. At the outset, learned advocates for the private parties submit that the dispute between the parties is amicably settled as per the terms and understanding of the settlement. It is further submitted that divorce of the complainant had taken place with petitioner No.1 of Criminal Misc. Application No.15505 of 2011 - Gaurangkumar Ramanbhai Patel as per the decree of divorce drawn by the County Court of Collin, State of Texas, United State of America. The complainant, who is present in the court, has reiterated and maintained what has been stated by her on oath in the affidavits dated 13.04.2012 filed in each of the petition.
4. In view of the above, it is jointly submitted that subjecting the petitioners to the rigour of trial would result into undue hardship and considering the nature of allegations and dispute it is desirable that impugned complaint and other proceedings pursuant to the said complaint be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate for the petitioners have relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of; [I] Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, [2008]9 SCC 677 and [ii] Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, [2008]4 SCC 582.
5. Heard learned advocates for the private parties and learned APP for the respondent - State of Gujarat and perused the record of the case.
6. In the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, [2008]9 SCC 677, the Apex Court has held that when a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have withdrawn all claims and allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing the criminal proceedings since the same would be a futile exercise. In the facts of the said case also, the offences alleged were similar in nature.
7. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, [2008]4 SCC 582, the Apex Court has made the following observations:
[6] We need to emphasis that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and benefit of the technicalities of the law".
8. Considering the fact that the dispute is now amicably settled between the parties, as per the terms and understanding of the settlement and considering the affidavits dated 13.04.2012 filed by the complainant in each of the petition and considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of [i] Nikhil Merchant [supra] and [ii] Madan Mohan Abbot [supra], I am inclined to exercise powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned complaints and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside. The affidavits dated 13.04.2012 filed by the complainant be taken on record and shall form part of the order.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
[Anant S. Dave, J.] *pvv Top