Heard Mr.Zubin F. Bharda, learned advocate for the applicants, Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Mr.Pinakin B. Raval, learned advocate for respondent No.2.
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.II-24 of 2012 registered at Mahila Police Station, Navsari for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).
At the outset learned advocate for the applicants has stated that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and in fact the first informant, respondent No.2-Monalben, has already taken divorce with original accused No.1. Considering the said fact the impugned F.I.R. is not described in detail in this order.
Suffice to it say that after marriage between the first informant i.e. respondent No.2 and original accused No.1-Shri Roshankumar Dhansukhbhai Bhakt were solemnized on 03.08.2009 because of some misunderstanding, even though the applicants are as such residing in USA, they are also arrayed as accused in the present F.I.R. The facts further indicate that out of wedlock even a son named Rushi is born, who is at present aged about three years, and only because of some private and personal grudge against original accused No.1, the allegations are leveled in the impugned F.I.R. of cruelty and harassment as well as theft.
Mr.Zubin F. Bharda, learned advocate for the applicants, has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. Reliance is placed upon the deed of divorce dated 04.02.2012 executed between respondent No.2-the first informant and Shri Roshankumar Dhansukhbhai Bhakt-original accused No.1 as well as affidavit dated 31.12.2012, which is filed by respondent No.2 in these proceedings. It is further pointed out on instructions that accused No.1 and respondent No.2 have already approached the competent court for a divorce by mutual consent as provided under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is further submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and, therefore, this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
Learned advocate for the applicants has further submitted that any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. shall amount to harassment to the applicants and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties trial would be futile and the same would also amount to abuse of process of law and court. Reliance is also placed upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu Vs. Radhika, 2011 (10) SCC 705 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 the concerned parties have amicably resolved the dispute between them, which was more particularly a matrimonial dispute, and even the divorce has taken place between respondent No.2 i.e. the first informant and original accused No.1-Shri Roshankumar Dhansukhbhai Bhakt and, therefore, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
Mr.Pinakin B. Raval, learned advocate for respondent No.2-first informant, reiterates the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. Attention is also invited on the affidavit dated 31.12.2012, which is tendered by respondent No.2 in the present proceedings wherein it is clearly stated that because of intervention of relatives as well as other respected members of their society, a compromise agreement/divorce deed dated 17.12.2012 has been executed between the concerned parties and the entire dispute, which was a matrimonial dispute, is amicably resolved. Respondent No.2 also prayed to quash the impugned F.I.R.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as considering the the decisions rendered in the cases of Shiji @ Pappu (supra), 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 and the trial would be futile and would also 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.II-24 of 2012 registered at Mahila Police Station, Navsari as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R are hereby quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Sd/-
[R.M.CHHAYA, J ] *** Bhavesh* Page 5 of 5