Heard Mr.P.P.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners, Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State, and Mr.Vishal C. Mehta, learned advocate for respondent No.2-original complainant and respondent No.3-original aggrieved person.
By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-95 of 2012 registered at Bahucharaji Police Station, Dist. Mehsana for the offences under Sections 342, 114, 392, 383, 384 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R.
The facts as revealed from the record of the petition are that the impugned F.I.R. has been filed by respondent No.2, inter alia, alleging that the present petitioners have assaulted respondent No.3 (brother of respondent No.2-original complainant) and demanded money and also alleged that the petitioners took away Rs.6,500/- in cash and a gold chain from respondent No.3. That after filing of the aforesaid F.I.R., investigation officer has taken statement of respondent No.3 and on the basis of the same, the Investigating Officer submitted his report on 21.11.2003 before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bahucharaji for addition of Section 392 of the IPC. That thereafter the petitioners approached Sessions Judge, Mehsana for getting anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected vide order dated 01.12.2012. That thereafter the matter is amicably settled between the parties and now respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. original complainant as well as original aggrieved person respectively have no grievance against the petitioners. That there was matrimonial dispute between son of respondent No.3 and daughter of petitioner No.1 herein, for which a separate F.I.R. was also lodged, which is the subject matter of Special Criminal Application No.3564 of 2012 filed before this Court, which came to be decided by a separate judgment of even date by this Court.
Mr.P.P.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners, has taken this Court to the factual matrix arising out of the present petition. It is submitted that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. It is further submitted that respondent No.2-original complainant as well as respondent No.3-original aggrieved person have also filed their affidavits before this Court whereby they have stated in categoric terms that the parties of the the impugned F.I.R. have amicably settled the dispute and the misunderstanding with the original accused is now removed and that they do not now wish to continue with the aforesaid F.I.R. and, therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have expressed that this Court may quash the impugned F.I.R. as well as all proceedings initiated pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. in view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties.
Mr.P.P.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners, has further submitted that the dispute in question is of personal nature and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties of the impugned F.I.R., no useful purpose would be served for continuation of the criminal proceedings in view of the impugned F.I.R. It is submitted that if the criminal proceedings are continued, the same would result into harassment to the petitioners and would amount to abuse of process of the court and law. Reliance was also placed upon the ratio of decisions in the cases of Shiji Alias Pappu & Ors. Vs. Radhika & Anr., (2011) 10 SCC 705, Nikhil Merchant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2009(1) GLH 31, Jagdish Chanana & Ors., Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2008(2) GLH 53 and Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., 2009(1) GLH 190 and, therefore, it was submitted that this is a fit case where this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and allow the present petition.
Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State, has candidly submitted that on bare reading of the impugned F.I.R. it reveals that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and also the parties have amicably settled the dispute, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
Mr.Vishal C. Mehta, learned advocate for respondent No.2-original complainant, has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioners. It is further submitted that as per the order dated 17.01.2013 passed by this Court in the present petition respondent No.2, who was personally present, has expressed that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and, therefore, this Court may allow the present petition.
It is note worthy that the matter was listed yesterday i.e. on 17.01.2013 wherein following order was passed by this Court:
It is indicative from the order dated 24.12.2012 passed by this Court (Coram: K.M.Thaker, J) that the parties have amicably settled the dispute.
Respondent No.2-Shri Mohanbhai Okhabhai Desai, is personally present in the court, who is identified by Mr.Vishal C. Mehta, learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. On enquiry respondent No.2 has stated that he has filed affidavit dated 17.12.2012 before this Court and has also stated that because of misunderstanding the F.I.R. has been lodged and that now the parties have amicably settled the dispute. S.O. to 18.01.2013.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present petition as well as considering the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions as well as the decisions rendered by the Apex Court 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, it appears that to continue criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioners-original accused would be unnecessary harassment to the petitioners and 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 of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petition is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-95 of 2012 registered at Bahucharaji Police Station, Dist. Mehsana as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
[R.M.CHHAYA, J ] *** Bhavesh* Page 6 of 6