Heard Mr.Kartik V. Pandya, learned advocate for the applicants, Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Ms.Neha Shukla, learned advocate for respondent No.2-original complainant.
By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-3 of 2012 registered at Chuda Police Station, Dist. Surendranagar by respondent No.2 for the offences under Sections 366, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
It is contended in the application that applicant No.2 is aged about 19 years and she is legally wedded wife of applicant No.1. Learned advocate for the applicants, has submitted that the allegations in the impugned F.I.R. are not correct and in fact both the applicants have solemnized their marriage on 17.05.2012 and at present they are living as husband-wife at Chandigrah. Attention was also drawn of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.2-original complainant whereby it has been stated that respondent No.2 had also filed Special Criminal Application No.6 of 2012 before this Court for writ of habeas corpus as the daughter of respondent No.2 i.e. applicant No.2 herein was not traceable. However, after disposal of the said petition by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.06.2012 the applicants were traceable and now as both applicants have married and are residing as husband-wife, respondent No.2 has no objection if this Court exercises its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and quash and set aside the F.I.R.
Learned advocate for the applicants, also relies upon the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 S.C.C. 303 and submits that the application be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR.
In order to verify the aforesaid facts, respondent No.2 was called for to remain present in the court through his learned advocate. Today, respondent No.2 is personally present, who is identified by Ms.Neha Shukla, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2-original complainant. On enquiry respondent No.2 has stated before this Court that he does not want to proceed further with the matter in connection with the impugned F.I.R.
Ms.Neha Shukla, learned advocate for respondent No.2-original complainant, has also reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants.
Ms.Moxha Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State, has candidly submitted that in view of the fact that both applicants are major and have got married and at present they are living as husband-wife, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
Considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application and the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and on verification of the facts stated in the affidavit of the original complainant, who is personally present in the court, it appears that respondent No.2 does not wish to proceed further with the matter.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties as well as considering the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Gian Singh (supra), 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 to continue criminal proceedings against the applicants original accused would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants.
In the facts and circumstances of this application further continuation of proceedings in relation to the impugned F.I.R. would amount to abuse of process of law and court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR 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 application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-3 of 2012 registered at Chuda Police Station, Dist. Surendranagar by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
[R.M.CHHAYA, J ] *** Bhavesh* Page 5 of 5