1. At the joint request of learned advocates for the parties, both these petitions are taken up for final disposal.
2. Both these petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the following main prayers:
Criminal Misc. Application No.2389 of 2012 [B] This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this Criminal Misc. Application by quashing and setting aside the complaint filed at Annexure-A as CR No.I-70 of 2011 before Shamlaji Police station and also be pleased to quash the further proceedings arising out of the complaint"
Criminal Misc. Application No.16546 of 2011 [a] Quash the impugned FIR being CR I No.72/2011 lodged with Shyamalaji Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 395, 452, 436 of IPC and u/s 135 of Bombay Police Act, which is at Annexur-A.
The details of the complaints in both the petitions are as under:-
S.No.
Case No.
Details of complaints Parties
1. Cri.
Misc. Appln. No.2389/2012 I-CR No.70/2011 for the offences punishable u/Ss. 498[A], 306, 114 of IPC and Secs. 3 & 7 of The Dowry Prohibition Act.
Complainant
- Kailasba Ajitsinh Chauhan. Accused : Surendrasinh Pratapsinh Sisodiya & Ors.
2. Cri.
Misc. Appln. No.16546/2011 I-CR No.72/2011 for the offences punishable u/Ss. 395, 452, 336 of IPC and Sec. 135 of Bombay Police Act.
Complainant
- Satyapalsinh Kanaksinh Sisodiya. Accused - Dilipsinh Khumansinh Chauhan & Ors.
3. In Criminal Misc. Application No.16546 of 2011 while issuing notice on 05.12.2011 learned Single Judge [Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh H. Shukla] granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 7[b], staying further proceedings of investigation in connection with FIR impugned therein. So far as Criminal Misc. Application No.2389 of 2012 is concerned, no notice is issued.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Jal Unwalla appears for the respondent No.2. Both the petitions are connected with each other and dispute has arisen out of sad demise of Ritaba, daughter of respondent No.2-Kailasba of Criminal Misc. Application No.2389 of 2012 and subsequent incidents have taken place out of immediate anger and outburst. It is submitted by the private parties that the dispute between the parties is settled due to intervention of community members and family members. Further, the terms of understanding would reveal that minor son Rajveer will be taken care of by the petitioners, including expenses for education and other incidental requirements and due share in the property as mentioned in the agreement. Complainant - Kailasba - respondent No.2 of Criminal Misc. Application No.2389 of 2012 is present in the Court. She submitted that harmony be maintained and peace may prevail and the disputes about maintenance of the child is amicably resolved in terms of undertaking and agreement. It is further submitted that she has no objection if the impugned complaints are quashed and set aside in both the petitions.
5. Heard learned APP for the respondent - State of Gujarat.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, including settlement arrived between the parties and terms of understanding and the scheme reflected in the agreement about welfare of the child, it appears that the parties involved in the dispute have realized that FIR was lodged in a heat of moment and version was also exaggerated. In the above circumstances, relegating the petitioner to rigmarole of trial would not serve any purpose and registering the FIR was due to unfortunate and sad demise of Ritaba though her husband had made all efforts to provide better education and job opportunities for her.
7. In the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, [2008]9 SCC 677, the Apex Court has held that when a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have withdrawn all claims and allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing the criminal proceedings since the same would be a futile exercise. IN the facts of the said case also, the offences alleged were similar in nature.
8. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, [2008]4 SCC 582, the Apex Court has made the following observations:
[6] We need to emphasis that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and benefit of the technicalities of the law"
9. Considering the nature of offences and other attending circumstances, as recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, ends of justice would be met, if the complaints impugned are set set aside. Accordingly, prayer in terms of para 7[a] of Criminal Misc. Application No.16546 of 2011 and prayer in terms of para 15[B] of Criminal Misc. Application No.2389 of 2012 are granted and complaints and further proceedings impugned in each of the petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. The parties shall abide by the terms of the agreement and it shall form part of this order and breach thereof by any party would result into consequential action that may be taken by this Court in accordance with law.
Both the petitions are allowed accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
[Anant S. Dave, J.] *pvv Top