This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the petitioner - original accused No.1 with the following prayer:
"[A] that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No.41 of 2010 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate [FC] at Valiya;
[B] that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings of Criminal Case No.41 of 2010 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate [FC] at Valiya during the pendency of this petition;
[C] that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the opponent no.3 I.O. of CID Crime, Gandhinagar from carrying-out further investigation in C.R. No. I-52/2008 registered before Valiya Police Station during the pendency of this petition".
2. In answer to the notice issued by this Court and what is recorded in the order dated 29.04.2012 while granting ad-interim relief in terms of para 10[B] and 10[C] qua the petitioner, today learned advocate for the petitioner has placed on record copy of the decree of divorce dated 05.05.2012 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch below Exh. 13 in Hindu Marriage Petition No.16 of 2012 whereby the respondent No.2 herein has received Rs.14,50,000/- towards full and final settlement arrived at between the parties. It is to be noted that decree of divorce was passed on the ground of mutual consent, as envisaged under Section 13[B] of the Hindu Marriage Act.
3. Even vide order dated 20.09.2011 passed in Special Criminal Application No.431 of 2010 and Special Criminal Application No. 535 of 2010, prior to the above decree, the Court had recorded the possibility of settlement which turned out to be true.
4. The above facts remained undisputed. The complainant - respondent No.2, who is present in the court reiterated and confirmed the fact of having received Rs.14,50,000/- towards full and final settlement and she agrees that if proceedings impugned arising out of CR No.I-52 of 2008 resulting into Criminal Case No.41 of 2010 are quashed and set aside in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code, she had no objection. It is also stated that upon receipt Rs.14,50,000/- in terms of settlement arrived between the parties, now no further grievance remains.
5. In view of the above, learned counsel Mr. A.D.Shah appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is presently residing in United Kingdom is also pursuing further studies and is subjected to various orders passed by Ministry of External Affairs and even issuance of Red Corner Notice, which has geneses in the complaint and proceedings impugned herein and to avoid unnecessary and undue harassment, if the petitioner is subjected to rigour of trial,
6. In view of the above, it is jointly submitted that subjecting the petitioners to the rigour of trial would result into undue hardship and considering the nature of allegations and dispute it is desirable that impugned complaint and other proceedings pursuant to the said complaint be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate for the petitioners has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of; [I] Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, [2008]9 SCC 677 and [ii] Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, [2008]4 SCC 582.
7. Heard learned advocates for the private parties and learned APP for the respondent - State of Gujarat and perused the record of the case.
8. 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.
9. 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".
10. Considering the fact that the dispute is now amicably settled between the parties, decree of divorce dated 05.05.2012 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch below Exh. 13 in Hindu Marriage Petition No.16 of 2012; the respondent No.2 has received Rs.14,50,000/- towards full and final settlement, and the complainant, who is present has stated that she has no objection if the impugned complaint is quashed and considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of [i] Nikhil Merchant [supra] and [ii] Madan Mohan Abbot [supra], I am inclined to exercise powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned complaint and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside.
In view of the amicable settlement arrived between the parties, it is expected of the parties that now onwards the parties shall avoid initiation of any proceedings against each other since bitterness of their relation has come to an end.
The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
[Anant S. Dave, J.] *pvv Top