Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 467 (GUJ)

Jigarbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2013-08-01

S.R.BRAHMBHATT

body2013
Judgment S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Leave to amend prayer clause is granted. Same shall be carried out forthwith. 1. Heard learned advocates for the parties. Rule. Ms. Archana C. Raval, learned APP and Mr. Hemant Raval, learned advocate for respondent State and original complainant respectively waives service of notice of rule. Rule is fixed forthwith with the consent of learned advocates for the parties. 2. The petitioners have taken out this petition invoking provision of Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the complaint being C.R. No. I-120/2012 lodged with Shahpur Police Station, District Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) and 114 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 & 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and prayed for quashment of the complaint as well as charge sheet and further proceeding arising there from being Criminal Case No. 403 of 2012 arising therefrom. 3. The matter is compromised and settled between the parties. Learned Counsel for the complainant has placed on record settlement affidavit of complainant-respondent No. 2 in compilation of this petition. In view of this, learned counsels for the parties have requested this Court to dispose of the matter and the complaint may be quashed. 4. Learned advocates for the parties have submitted that the complaint was filed on account of matrimonial dispute, which are private dispute. The parties have settled their dispute and now they are residing peacefully. The parties i.e. petitioner No. 1 in this petition and complainant Respondent No. 2, i.e. husband and wife respectively have decided to get separated from their matrimonial ties. Learned advocate for Respondent No. 2 also produced on record affidavit sworn by the complainant, wherein it is clearly stated that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and compromise has been arrived at between them. She has also stated that all the pending cases against the petitioners party will be withdrawn in view of amicable settlement and hence, if the complaint is quashed, then she has no objection. The Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw the impugned complaint and has agreed to give consent for quashing of impugned F.I.Rs and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Hence quashment of the same is sought by way of this petition. 5. The complainant is present in the Court and she has been identified as such by learned advocate Mr. The Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw the impugned complaint and has agreed to give consent for quashing of impugned F.I.Rs and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Hence quashment of the same is sought by way of this petition. 5. The complainant is present in the Court and she has been identified as such by learned advocate Mr. Hemant Raval, who has assured this Court to file his vakalatnama within two days. The Court also requested learned APP Mr. Archana C. Raval to inquire with her with regard to the settlement and quashment of the proceedings. Learned APP submits that the complainant – Respondent No. 2 is ready & willing for the quashment of the complaint. When the Court also inquired to her, she has very emphatically submitted that it is her own volition and decision to settle the matter and there is no compulsion from any one. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others, vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC pg. 58, wherein it is observed by the Apex Court that to lead peaceful life and to meet the ends of justice in a dispute arising out of matrimonial discord it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes even though the offences are non-compoundable; and another decision in case B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , wherein the Apex Court has observed that it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. Learned advocate also relied upon another decision of the Apex Court in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , and another decision in case of Jay Rajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in GLR 2013 (1) pg. 65, as well as the observations of this Court in case of Rajbha Babhbha @ Rajendrasinh Annirudhsinh Sarvaiya & Ors., in Criminal Misc. Application No. 260/2013, decided on 21/2/2013; and submitted that in light of the observations in these judgments the FIR in question deserves to be quashed. 7. 65, as well as the observations of this Court in case of Rajbha Babhbha @ Rajendrasinh Annirudhsinh Sarvaiya & Ors., in Criminal Misc. Application No. 260/2013, decided on 21/2/2013; and submitted that in light of the observations in these judgments the FIR in question deserves to be quashed. 7. This Court is of the considered view that looking to the averments in FIR and affidavit of settlement if are considered in light of the above observations of the Apex Court, then, there exists no scope of any further proceedings in the matter, as it would amount to creating consternation to the parties for no reason and in light of this development conviction is not even remotely plausible. 8. Further, in light of the above observations when the offence is predominantly in arena of private dispute and when the settlement between the parties have arrived at and there is no harm to person and property, continuation of the proceedings would create consternation and would be counter productive of justice. The Court shall strive to perpetuate a situation where peace is prevailed rather than creating consternation of feuds between the parties. Mr. D.A. Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioners under instructions submits that the petitioners would never filed any complaint against the complainant-respondent no.2 in retaliation of filing present complaint against them. 9. In view of this, as the nature of complaint being that of matrimonial the FIR being C.R. No: I-120/2012 registered with Shahpur Police Station, District Ahmedabad; subsequent charge-sheet filed thereon, and further proceedings being Criminal Case No. 403 of 2012 arising therefrom and pending before the Trial Court are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.