Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 767 (GUJ)

CHHATRAPALSINH SAJUBHA JHALA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2014-07-14

R.M.CHHAYA

body2014
JUDGMENT R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.R. Yagnik, learned advocate for the applicants, Ms. Hansa B. Punani, learned APP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. N.D. Buch, learned advocate for respondent No. 3. 2. Rule. Ms. Hansa B. Punani, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. N.D. Buch, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 3. 3. Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the applicants and respondent No. 3 has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith. 4. 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 FIR bearing CR No. I - 68 of 2014 registered with Isanpur Police Station, Ahmedabad for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 143, 148, 149 and 506(1) of the IPC and Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicants. 5. The learned advocate for the applicants has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicants. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No. 3 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. It is therefore submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code and allow the application as prayed for. 6. Vide order dated 10.7.2014, the learned APP sought time to take instructions. It is therefore submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code and allow the application as prayed for. 6. Vide order dated 10.7.2014, the learned APP sought time to take instructions. The learned APP, on instructions from the officer who is personally present before this Court, states that even though there are injury certificate on record, considering the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another, 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) and Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory, AIR 2013 SC 518 , this Court may pass appropriate orders. 7. The learned advocate for respondent No. 3 has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. The learned advocate for respondent No. 3 also relied upon the affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 Vijaybhai @ Bharatbhai Khetaji Raval dated 4.7.2014. Respondent No. 3 has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No. 3 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 , Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, 2009 (1) GLH 31 , Manoj Sharma vs. State of Gujarat & Others, 2009 (1) GLH 190, Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another, 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) and Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory, AIR 2013 SC 518 , it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would 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 and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code. 9. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing CR No. I - 68 of 2014 registered with Isanpur Police Station, Ahmedabad filed against the present applicants is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.