1. Heard Mr. R.J. Goswami, learned advocate for the applicants, Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP for respondent No.1 and Mr. D.R. Ray, learned advocate for respondent No.2.
2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside Criminal Case No.905 of 2009 pending before the JMFC, Himmatnagar, District Sabarkantha.
3. This Court (Coram: M.R. Shah, J.) vide order dated 25.7.2011 has passed the following order: “RULE. Adinterim relief is directed to continue as interim relief till final disposal of the Criminal Miscellaneous Application. Shri K.P. Raval, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1 and Shri D.R. Ray, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.2.”
4. It transpires from the record that the FIR came to be lodged at Himmatnagar Town Police Station on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC which came to be registered as CR No.II3616 of 2008 on 11.12.2008. Bare reading of the aforesaid FIR indicates that certain allegations are made against the present applicants by the original informant. It further transpires from the record that respondent No.2 wife of applicant No.1 has filed an affidavit wherein it is stated by respondent No.2 as under: “1. I say that I have lodged an FIR bearing IIC.R. No.3616/08 registered with Himmatnagar Town Police Station against the present petitioners and thereafter the chargesheet was filed and it has been registered as Criminal Case no.905/09 before the Hon'ble Court Judicial Magistrate First Class, Himmatnagar. I say that I have settled the matter with the petitioners herein on 02.12.2012. A copy of the said settlement is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE R1. I say that as per the settlement the petitioner No.1 has paid me an amount of Rs. Six Lakhs in cash today and against the said amount I have given up all the rights including the maintenance right throughout my life. I say that a joint consent divorce petition under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act is also filed by me and petitioner No.1 Vivekanand Mukundrai Acharya before the Hon'ble District Court, Himmatnagar.
2. I say that I undertake that I will abide by terms and settlement dated 02.12.2012 and will not commit any breach of the same.
3. I say that since the matter is settled between the petitioner and me and I have received the amount of Rs. Six lakhs in cash from the petitioner No.1 therefore I have no objection if the FIR lodged by me and the Criminal Case arising out of the same is quashed and set aside.
4. I have no objection if the prayer made by the petitioner in petition are granted.”
5. Mr. R.J. Goswami, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that in view of the affidavit as well as the fact that applicant No.1 in particular and other applicants have settled the dispute amicably with respondent No.2, even though some of the alleged offences are noncompoundable, this Court may be pleased to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Mr. Goswami has relied upon the decisions of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31 and Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190. It is further submitted that even though some of the offences are non compoundable, the bar under Section 320 of the Code would not in any way abridged the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code. It is, therefore, submitted that any further continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to harassment. It is also contended that in view of the affidavit filed and the settlement arrived at amicably by and between the applicants and respondent No.2, the trial would amount to abuse of process of law and Court and there is no possibility of any conviction and hence, even considering the ratio laid down in the case of Gian Singh (supra) as well as considering the facts of this case, this is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
6. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP candidly submitted that in view of the fact that the impugned complaint is lodged by respondent No.2 who is wife of applicant No.1, considering the affidavit and the relations between the parties, the Court may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. Mr. D.R. Ray, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the contentions taken by Mr. Goswami, learned advocate for the applicants. Mr. Ray states that respondent No.2 is present in the Court and respondent No.2 is identified by Mr. Ray and on inquiry from respondent No.2, respondent No.2 has informed this Court that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. It is, therefore, submitted that the prayers prayed for in this application may kindly be granted.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the facts stated hereinabove and as the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the dispute seems to be private in nature and considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears that the criminal proceedings against the applicants would be unnecessarily harassment to the applicants and the same shall not be in the interest of parties and therefore, the impugned complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the complaint being Criminal Case No.905 of 2009 pending before the JMFC, Himmatnagar, District Sabarkantha is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid complaint are also terminated. Accordingly, this application is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
mrpandya (R.M.CHHAYA, J.)