Heard Mr.Apurva R. Kapadia, learned advocate for the applicant, Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Mr.Y.H.Motiramani, 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 the F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-44 of 2012 registered at Dediyapada Police Station, for the offences under Sections 406, 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (at Annexure-A to the petition) as well as all the other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R.
The facts as revealed from the record of the application are : that the first informant has alleged that the applicant promised her to marry and on the basis of such promise the present applicant and the first informant developed relations. It is also averred in the F.I.R. that in fact the date of marriage was fixed and even the invitation cards were distributed. However, at that stage, the present applicant declined to marry the first informant. On this factual basis it is alleged that the applicant has duped and cheated the first informant and has committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.
It is further alleged that on the basis of such assurance given by the present applicant, the applicant also developed physical relations with the first informant and has thereby committed offences under Section 376 of the IPC.
At the outset Mr.Apurva R. Kapadia, learned advocate for the applicant, states that after the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged and during pendency of the investigation the present applicant and respondent No.2-first informant got married on 05.11.2012 at Village Rumala, Tal.Chikhali, Dist. Navsari. Reliance was placed upon the photocopy of the marriage certificate issued by the Registrar of Marriages dated 05.11.2012. It is further submitted that even otherwise if the allegations made in the the impugned F.I.R. are taken on the face value, the same does not constitute any offences under Sections 406 and 420 as well as Section 376 of the IPC. It is further submitted that in fact because of temperamental differences the impugned F.I.R. came to be lodged by respondent No.2. Learned advocate for the applicant harped upon the aspect that in fact the parties i.e. the present applicant and respondent No.2 have amicably settled the dispute and, therefore, any further continuation of the criminal proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. would amount to harassment to the parties, including the first informant, as now the parties are staying happily as husband-wife since the date of their marriage i.e. 05.11.2012. It is submitted that considering the aforesaid fact trial would be futile and the same would be abuse of process of court and law and, therefore, to secure the ends of justice, this is a fit case where this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
Mr.Y.H.Motiramani, learned advocate for respondent No.2-first informant, reiterates the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant. It is further submitted that even the applicant and respondent No.2 are present in the court and respondent No.2 has filed affidavit dated 07.08.2012 wherein it is declared that only because of temperamental differences the impugned F.I.R. came to be lodged. It is therefore submitted that respondent No.2 has no objection if the present application is allowed and the impugned F.I.R. is quashed by this Court.
Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State, candidly states that as such 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 is not applicable in the instant case. However, it is submitted that considering the fact that both the parties i.e. the present applicant and respondent No.2 got married and are at present residing together as husband-wife, the contentions raised by the present applicant and respondent No.2 may be considered and this Court may pass appropriate orders.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, and it appears from the contents of the impugned F.I.R.
that the present applicant and respondent No.2 had formerly agreed to marry and such marriage was to be solemnized on 12.05.2012. It also transpires that because of such relation the present applicant and respondent No.2 have travelled and stayed together, however, because of some temperamental differences, as reflected in the aforesaid affidavit filed by respondent No.2, the impugned F.I.R. came to be lodged. However, it is a matter of fact that the present applicant and respondent No.2 got married on 05.11.2012 and even the marriage has been registered at the office of Registrar of Marriages, Rumala, Tal. Chikhali, Dist. Navsari. Even considering the averments made in the allegation in the F.I.R. as it is the same is nothing but an afterthought.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on enquiry from the present applicant and respondent No.2, who were present on earlier date of hearing i.e. on 24.01.2013 it is an admitted position that the parties have got married and at present they are residing as husband-wife. It also appears from the allegations in the F.I.R. that it does not prima facie constitute offences under Sections 406, 420 and 376 of the IPC.
Considering the totality of the facts of the case that the parties have now got married and are residing together as husband-wife, even to secure the ends of justice this is a specific case to exercise inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Code.
It may be added that even considering the fact that the present applicant and respondent No.2 are now leading their family life as husband-wife, any further continuation of criminal proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R.
would amount to harassment to the parties and would also amount to abuse of process of law and court and the trial would be futile and hence, the impugned F.I.R. is required to be quashed in exercise of power 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-44 of 2012 registered at Dediyapada Police Station as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R are 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