1. Rule.
Learned APP, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. H.B. Champavat, learned advocate, for respondent No.2.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the applicants with the following prayers:
"9 (A) Your Lordships be pleased to quash the impugned FIR being C.R. No.I-232 of 2007 registered with Rajkot Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495, 497(A), 120(B), 114 and 343 of Indian Penal Code, charge sheet and all further proceedings in pursuance thereto, qua the petitioners, in the interest of justice;
(B) Your Lordships be pleased to stay the further proceedings of FIR being C.R. No.I-232/2007 registered with Rajkot Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495, 497(A), 120(B), 114 and 343 of Indian Penal Code, qua the petitioners, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this application, in the interest of justice;"
3. At the outset, learned advocate for the applicants and complainant jointly submit that an amicable settlement is arrived at between the parties and complainant in this case is the father of a daughter who entered into matrimonial relationship with applicant No.3 son of applicants No. 1 and 2 and it is alleged that though earlier marriage of applicant No.3 was subsisting the said fact was not disclosed and daughter of the complainant was mislead to believe that applicant No.3 was unmarried and accordingly marriage was performed.
4. Now the complainant father as well as his daughter Minalba have filed affidaivt dated 18.3.2011 and at Annexure 'C' to the application both of them have stated in no uncertain terms that complaint was filed due to misunderstanding and now the dispute is amicably settled and they have no objection if the proceedings are quashed and set aside.
5. That the complainant and his daughter are present in the Court and reaffirmed what is stated in the above affidavit and submit that the daughter of the complainant would live the life independently as per her choice and at the young age she has better prospects and continuing with the litigation would jeopardise her marital interest in future and subjecting the accused for trial in the above circumstances would be of no use and, therefore, considering the overall aspects and in view of the provisions of Section 320 of the Code and decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Das (Dr.) vs. State of U.P. And Anr. [(2006) 6 SCC 536] and in the case of Priya Vrat Singh and Ors. v. Syam Ji Sahai [(2008) 8 SCC 232] and oral order dated 17.8.2010 passed by learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9439 of 2010 quashing the complaint containing similar allegations, I am inclined to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code as prayed and accordingly the impugned complaint and proceedings are quashed and set aside.
6. The application is allowed to the aforesaid extend. Rule is made absolute. No costs.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita// Top