1 Rule.
Service is waived. Upon joint request made by the learned advocates for the parties, this matter is taken up for final disposal.
2 This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short, 'the Code'] is filed by the applicants to quash the Criminal Complaint bearing No.283 of 2008 filed on 10.7.2007, verified on 17.11.2007 and process issued on 19.2.2008 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3 Priti Mohan Makhijani, respondent No.2, is present in the Court and confirms that a purshis was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9, Ahmedabad to withdraw Criminal Complaint bearing No.283 of 2008 . She further states that she received Rs.13 lakhs from her husband towards full and final settlement. In view of the above, it is jointly prayed that interest of justice would be served if the impugned complaint is quashed by this Court.
5 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above statement and settlement, and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of K. Gyansagar vs. Ganesh Gupta & another, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 54, Jagdish Chanana and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 15 SCC 704, and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, in my view, a case is made out to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code to secure ends of justice and, accordingly, the impugned complaint is quashed and set aside. The application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top