1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2011
  6. /
  7. January

Parul vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|27 April, 2011


Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Pujari and learned advocate, Mr.Umang Oza waive service of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively.
The present application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR registered as I.C.R.No.50 of 2005 before Makarpura Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs.498-A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC in pursuance of complaint filed by the respondent No.2-complainant.
Heard learned advocate, Mr.Chirag Patel for the petitioners, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate, Mr.Umang Oza for the respondent No.2.
It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Chirag Patel for the petitioners that when the incident in question took place, both the petitioners were residing at London. The petitioner No.1 is a citizen of U.K. and petitioner No.2 is working in U.K. on working Visa.
The present respondent No.2-original complainant has lodged complaint against the present petitioners and other accused persons for the offences punishable under Secs.498-A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC as well as under Section 37 of the Prevention of Dowry Act. For another offences the other accused of the said complaint preferred quashing petition before this Court, and as this is matrimonial matter, it was sent by this Court to Mediation Centre. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioners that the matter is settled between the parties before the Mediation Centre. As per the report of the Mediator, both the cases i.e. Criminal Case No.662 of 2005 as well as FIR being C.R.No. I - 50 of 2005 registered before Makarpura Police Station which is challenged before this Court by way of filing this application, the same are also settled before the Mediation Centre.
On basis of this settlement arrived at between the parties and considering the report of the Mediator, the learned JMFC, Vadodara has acquitted the other accused persons. As far as the petitioners are concerned, both the petitioners are residing at U.K. and they did not attend the Court and so this petition is filed for quashing of the complaint in question. The complainant is present before this Court. Learned advocate Mr.Umang Oza appeared on behalf of complainant and he has identified the complainant. Learned advocate Mr.Umang Oza states that he will file vakalatnama on behalf of complainant during the course of the day. The complainant also stated before this Court that the matter is settled and she has no grievance against the present petitioners. She has also requested to quash the complaint.
The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008)4 Supreme Court Cases page 582 has observed as under in paras 5 and 7 of the judgment:
"5. It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out."
We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs.250/- which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case, direct that FIR No.155 dated 17th November 2001 P.S. Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed."
Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that this Cri. Misc. Application is required to be allowed and the parties be permitted to compound the offence.
In the result, this Cri. Misc. Application is allowed. The complaint in question being I.C.R.No.50 of 2005 registered before Makarpura Police Station, Vadodara and the proceedings thereunder as well as Criminal Case No.662 of 2005 pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara are required to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(M.D.Shah,J.) syed/ Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Parul vs State


High Court Of Gujarat

27 April, 2011