AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.M. Chhaya, J.—Heard Mr. J.V. Vaghela, learned Advocate for the petitioners-original accused, Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP. for respondent State and Mr. H.B. Champavat for respondent no. 2 the first informant. By way of this application u/S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed for quashing FIR being CR. No. II. 3042 of 2010 registered with Bhiloda Police Station, District Sabarkantha for the offences u/Ss. 504, 506(2), 507 and 114 of Indian Penal Code as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR.
At the outset, it may be noted that the first informant-respondent no. 2 had married the sister of the petitioners and as pointed out by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the parties have resolved the dispute amicably and in fact the sister of the petitioners and the first informant respondent no. 2 herein, have separated.
Mr. Vaghela, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners original accused has taken this Court through the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR in particular and submitted that the first informant and his wife as well as the petitioners have amicably resolved the dispute which was predominantly of matrimonial and domestic in nature, any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR shall amount to harassment to the parties and in view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and the first informant and sister of petitioners have separated, trial would be futile and the same would also amount to abuse of process of law and Court. Mr. Vaghela therefore submitted that in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction u/S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the impugned FIR as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR.
Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP. for respondent-State, candidly submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly considering the fact that the parties have resolved the dispute amicably and in fact the sister of the petitioners and the first informant respondent no. 2 herein, have separated.
Mr. H.B. Champavat, learned Advocate for respondent no. 2 reiterated the contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Champavat has further relied upon the affidavit of the first informant dated 11.2.2013 and has submitted that the parties have now settled the dispute and no grievance is left.
This Court (Coram: Hon''ble Mr. Justice K.M. Thaker) on 18.2.2013 has observed thus:
The above mentioned four petitions are cross petitions arising from the cross complains filed by the husband and wife.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in respective petitions has submitted that both, the husband and wife, have filed complaints against each other and subsequently settlement has been arrived at between husband and wife.
2.1 In each of the four petitions the private respondent is also represented by learned advocate who has submitted that he will enter his appearance before 19.2.2013.
2.2 It is jointly submitted on behalf of the husband and wife that in view of the settlement between said two complainants, divorce has been finalized and both have separated by Deed of Divorce.
Today, an affidavit dated 11.2.2013 made by the petitioner''s husband is tendered on record. The affidavit is dated 11.2.2013 and learned advocate for the husband has identified the signature and has also admitted that the affidavit has been voluntarily made by the husband.
3.1 The husband has stated in the affidavit dated 11.2.2013 that he does not have any grievance against the wife and he also does not have any objection if the complaint filed by him is quashed.
3.2 The wife has also filed similar affidavit dated 11.2.2013.
3.3 Learned advocate representing wife has also identified the signature of petitioner wife and stipulated that the wife has voluntarily made the affidavit.
3.4 A photocopy of the document dated 11.1.2013 purporting to be Deed of Divorce is also placed on record.
In view of the said joint submission by learned advocate for the petitioners and respondent, below mentioned common order is passed in all four petitions.
Rule. Ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph No. 7(B) in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 2720 of 2013, 2721 of 2013 and 2717 of 2013 and 6(B) in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2715 of 2013. It would be open to the husband and wife to request the Hon''ble Court where the petitions u/s 482 of the Code are assigned for final hearing, to take present petitions for hearing and final decision.
It may further be noted that by order dated 22.3.2013 this Court in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 2715 of 2013 and 2717 of 2013 passed the following common order:
Learned Advocates Mr. J.V. Vaghela as well as Mr. H.B. Champavat, appearing for Respondent No. 2 in both these applications submit that parties have amicably resolved the dispute and settlement arrived at between the parties.
Mr. H.B. Champavat, learned advocate appearing for Respondent No. 2 shall file his appearance on 25.3.2013. He further identifies the Respondent No. 2, Mr. Anirudh Narendrasinh Champavat. The Respondent No. 2 has declared before this Court that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute.
Stand Over to 2nd April 2013, for orders.
Considering the aforesaid facts, it transpires from the record of the application that the parties have amicably settled the domestic dispute and have in fact the first informant and sister of petitioners have separated.
Having heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as considering the decisions rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in the cases of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, as well as in the cases of Shiji @ Pappu and Others Vs. Radhika and Another, , Jagdish Chanana and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others, , Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR would be unnecessary harassment to the parties and the trial would be futile and would also amount to abuse of process of law and Court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed in exercise of power u/S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application is allowed. The impugned FIR being CR. No. II. 3042 of 2010 registered with Bhiloda Police Station, District Sabarkantha as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.