The facts of the case stated briefly are that the petitioner No.2 herein had lodged a compliant against the petitioner No.1 herein, and two other unnamed persons, alleging commission of the offence punishable under section 376(4) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which came to be registered as a first information report vide Gadhada Police Station I - C.R. No. 145/07.
It appears that subsequently, the petitioners have settled the matter between them outside the Court and the settlement has been reduced in writing vide a compromise deed dated 30th April 2008 executed before a Notary on Rs.100/- stamp papers. In the said compromise deed the petitioner No.2 has stated that she had lodged the complaint at the instance of other interested persons who wanted to malign the petitioner No.1. She has also agreed to cooperate with the petitioner No.1 for quashing the first information report in question.
It is in the background of the aforesaid facts that both the petitioners have jointly filed the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) praying to quash the first information report in question.
Mr.
V.M. Pancholi learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that on the face of the allegations made in the complaint the same are highly improbable. It is submitted that the said aspect is fortified by the contents of the compromise deed which make it evident that the petitioner No.2 had lodged the complaint in question at the instance of some interested persons with the intent to malign a respected and reputed person like the petitioner No.1. It is submitted that in the circumstances, the first information report is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and as such deserves to be quashed by the Court in exercise of its inherent powers.
In this matter, as both the complainant and the accused No.1 have jointly filed the present petition, after hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioners, Rule was issued on 23rd June, 2008. Subsequently, Mr. K.P. Raval learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed on record a communication dated 25th June, 2008 of the Police Sub-Inspector, Gadhada wherein it is stated that he has recorded the statement of the petitioner No.2, whereby she has stated that she had voluntarily executed the compromise deed and that the same was not made on account of any force or coercion. The said statement bearing the signature of the petitioner No.2 is annexed with the said communication wherein she has stated that she has executed the compromise deed voluntarily and of her own free will and that she stands by the contents thereof.
This Court has considered the record of the case as well as the documents placed on record by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
In the opinion of this Court on a perusal of the allegations made in the first information report, more particular the sequence of events narrated therein, the same do not appear to be plausible. That, coupled with the contents of the compromise deed, wherein the petitioner No.2-original complainant has categorically stated that she has filed the complaint at the instance of certain interested persons who wanted to tarnish the reputation of the petitioner No.1, lend credence to the submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the allegations made in the complaint are false. In the circumstances, though the allegations made in the complaint are serious in nature, the same prima facie do not appear to be true. Besides in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. In the circumstances, the interest of justice would best be served if the first information report in question is quashed. This is, therefore, a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Code.
For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The first information report registered vide Gadhada Police Station I C.R. No.145 of 2007 and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute.
[HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar*