Heard Mr.Vikram J. Thakor, learned advocate for the applicant, Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Ms.Jagtap Meena Anil, 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 applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-65 of 2009 registered at Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad by respondent No.2 for the offences under Sections 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) as well as consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R.
It is contended in the application that relationship of the present applicant with the original complainant is of sister-in-law (nanand). That in the impugned F.I.R. brother of the present applicant i.e. husband of respondent No.2, Ashit Vishwanath Gohel, mother of the present applicant, Dinaben Gohel, father of the present applicant, Vishwanath Gohel, were shown as accused. It is further contended in the application that the parties have amicably resolved the disputes and, therefore, this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and quash and set aside the impugned F.I.R. as well as consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R.
Mr.Vikram J. Thakor, learned advocate for the applicant, has taken the court to the factual matrix of the matter, more particularly invited attention of this Court to the agreement dated 22.05.2012 (at Annexure-C to the application) entered into between respondent No.2-original complainant and her husband. It is further submitted that in fact so far as other three accused are concerned, Criminal Case No.17970 of 2009 came to be registered wherein vide order dated 31.05.2012 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), acquitted all the three accused. It is further submitted that even in the said criminal case very same agreement was produced and on the basis of which the aforesaid order was passed. Attention was also invited of this Court that in fact the applicant stays in Australia at Sydney and, according to the learned advocate for the applicant, the applicant left India before lodging the impugned F.I.R. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly taking into consideration the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings with respect to impugned F.I.R. against the present applicant. It is therefore submitted that further continuation of the criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. would be harassment to the present applicant and hence, this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and quash and set aside the impugned F.I.R. as well as consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R.
Ms.Jagtap Meena Anil, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2-original complainant, has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant. It is pointed out that respondent No.2 is personally present before this Court. Attention was drawn of this Court to the affidavit dated 13.08.2012 filed by the original complainant in this application and it is submitted that respondent No.2 has no objection, if this Court allows the present application as prayed for.
Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have also placed on record judgment and order dated 22.08.2012 passed by Judge, Family Court No.4, Ahmedabad in Family Suit No.447 of 2009, which is taken on record. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment it appears that husband of respondent No.2 Shri Ashit Vishwanath Gohel and respondent No.2 had filed a divorce petition for obtaining decree of divorce by mutual consent as provided under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was granted, as aforesaid.
Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State, candidly submits that in view of judgment dated 31.05.2012 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Case No.17970 of 2009 as well as the affidavit dated 13.08.2012 filed before this Court and the agreement dated 22.05.2012 (at Annexure-C to the application) the dispute, which was private in nature, seems to have been resolved between the parties and, therefore, submits that the court may pass appropriate orders.
Considering 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 and who is identified by Ms.Jagtap Meena Anil, learned advocate, it appears that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute. On enquiring from respondent No.2 she has reiterated that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, considering the facts stated hereinabove, as the parties have amicably settled the dispute, which seems to be private in nature, this Court is of the opinion that further continuation of the criminal proceedings in respect to and in connection with the impugned F.I.R. would be harassment to the applicant, who stays away from India since 2008, and the trial would be futile exercise. Also, considering the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of 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 applicant original accused would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant and the same shall not be in the interest of the parties and, therefore, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside 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-65 of 2009 registered at Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad by respondent No.2 is 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