Heard Ms.Kruti M. Shah, learned advocate for the applicants, Mr.J.K.Shah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State, and Ms.Bhavna D. Acharya, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2-first informant.
By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the applicants have prayed for quashing the impugned F.I.R.
being C.R. No.I-76 of 2010 registered at Mahila Police Station, Surat on 10.09.2010 by respondent No.2-first informant for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as all the other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R.
It is, inter alia, alleged in the F.I.R. that respondent No.2 got married with applicant No.1 on 04.02.2007 at Mumbai and thereafter respondent No.2 lived with her husband (i.e. applicant No.1) and other family members of applicant No.1. That during initial days applicant No.1 treated respondent No.2 properly. However, at the instance of sister-in-law of respondent No.2, applicant No.1 started beating respondent No.2 and also demanded dowry. That when applicant No.1 came to the parental home of respondent No.2, applicant No.1 demanded dowry and even a gold chain of 30 grms. was given to applicant No.1. That in the year 2008 respondent No.2 was ill-treated by the applicants on the ground of not bringing adequate dowry.
Ms.Kruti M. Shah, learned advocate for the applicants, has submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are incorrect and do not reflect the truth. It is submitted that because of some differences between the parties i.e. applicant No.1 and respondent No.2-first informant, they have separated. It is further submitted that applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 had also gone to Bangkok and stayed there and thereafter they returned Mumbai for few days. It is further submitted that the allegations leveled in the impugned F.I.R. are made because of some misunderstanding between the parties and in fact they have resolved the dispute amicably. It is contended that applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 have jointly filed a petition for divorce before Family Court at Surat under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is further submitted that pursuant to the settlement the applicants have paid an amount of Rs.26,00,000/- and the same has already been credited in the bank account of respondent No.2-original complainant and, therefore, any further continuation of criminal proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid impugned F.I.R. would amount to harassment to the present applicants and would amount to abuse of process of court and law. Considering the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the present application deserves to be allowed.
Ms.Bhavna D. Acharya, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2-first informant, has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants and has submitted that the present application deserves to be allowed and the impugned F.I.R. be quashed.
Mr.J.K.Shah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State, has candidly submitted that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and considering the fact that applicant No.1 and respondent No.2-first informant are husband-wife, who have jointly filed a petition for divorce, this Court may pass appropriate order.
Before considering the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties, it may be noted that while admitting the present application by this Court (Coram: K.M.Thaker, J) vide order dated 18.12.2012 has already recorded that as per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the parties have, on deliberation, settled their dispute and they have arrived at a settlement.
It may be noted that thereafter when the matter came up for hearing on 28.01.2013 this Court passed the following order:
Ms.Bhavna D. Acharya, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2-original complainant, states that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. Attention was also invited to the order of admission dated 18.12.2012 passed by this Court.
Respondent No.2-original complainant, Manisha d/o. Shamjibhai Shiroya, residing at Surat is present,who is identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2, and a photocopy of her Adhar Card is also produced on record showing her identity.
Upon inquiry the original complainant states that the parties have amicable resolved the dispute. She reiterates the stand taken by her in the affidavit dated 01.11.2012 filed in the present proceedings. She has further stated that she has also received a cheque of Rs.26,00,000/- and the same has been credited in her bank account. She has further stated that in fact in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties i.e. husband-wife, both have jointly approached Family Court, Surat by filing an application for divorce as provided under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
S.O.
to 31.01.2013 for orders.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, considering the fact that predominant dispute between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 i.e. husband-wife is resolved and they have jointly filed a divorce petition before the competent court to get divorce by consent, considering the fact that the applicants and respondent No.2 have amicably settled the dispute and respondent No.2 has also received an amount of Rs.26,00,000/-, as aforesaid, as well as considering the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 S.C.C. 303, 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 further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned F.I.R. against the applicants- original accused would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants and would amount to abuse of process of law and court. It may be noted that as recorded by this Court in the aforesaid order dated 28.01.2013 respondent No.2 has in unequivocal terms declared before this Court that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and that she has received the aforesaid amount, this court is of the opinion that in order to secure the ends of justice this is a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Code.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-76 of 2010 registered at Mahila Police Station, Surat by respondent No.2 as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. are hereby quashed and set aside.
It is however clarified that it would be open for respondent No.2 to take appropriate steps in case of any difficulty, as the divorce petition is pending before the competent court.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
[R.M.CHHAYA, J ] *** Bhavesh* Page 6 of 6