Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 651 (GUJ)

Sachin Shreekant Marathi v. State of Gujarat

2015-06-30

ABHILASHA KUMARI

body2015
JUDGMENT Abhilasha Kumari, J. 1. Rule. Ms. Chetna M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 1. Mr. Kamlesh S. Kotai, learned advocate states that he has received instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No. 2-Complainant and would be filing his Vakalatnama in the Registry, during the course of the day. He is permitted to do so. He waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 2-Complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances in which the matter arises, it is being heard and decided finally, at this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This application under Section-482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) has been preferred by the applicants with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR, being C.R. No. II-3090/2013 registered with Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad, on 08.05.2013, in connection with offences under Sections-506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.02.2013, at about 2.00 p.m., respondent No. 2-Complainant and his son were present at their residence. At that time, the applicants allegedly passed through their house and said that they would see to it how the husband of the complainant would get an order of bail from the Court. It is further alleged that the applicants allegedly threatened the complainant that if she managed to get an order of bail, they will break her neck. At about 5.00 p.m., the complainant consumed a liquid like phinile and was shifted to the Hospital by 108 Ambulance. Under the circumstances, the FIR in question has been filed. 4. It is the case of the applicants before this Court that the matter has been amicably resolved between them and the complainant, as stated in the affidavit filed by the complainant, wherein she has stated that the FIR was lodged on provocation, but now the parties have agreed to remain peacefully without involving themselves in any fight in future. It is further stated that respondent No. 2-Complainant no longer wishes to proceed with the criminal proceedings against the applicants, therefore, the prayers made in the application may be granted. 5. Mr. It is further stated that respondent No. 2-Complainant no longer wishes to proceed with the criminal proceedings against the applicants, therefore, the prayers made in the application may be granted. 5. Mr. Hemant K. Makwana, learned advocate for the applicants submits that in view of the settlement between the parties and as the complainant no longer wishes to pursue the criminal prosecution and both parties have no malice or ill-will against each other, the prayers made in the application may be granted. 6. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported in (2008)4 SCC 582 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 . 7. Ms. Chetna M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 has objected to the prayer made by the applicants and respondent No. 2 and submits that the law may be permitted to run its own course. 8. Mr. Kamlesh S. Kotai, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 has reiterated the stand taken by the complainant in her affidavit, by submitting that the parties have resolved their differences and have decided to live in peaceful manner without disturbing each other's life. Further, the complainant no longer wishes to proceed with the criminal proceedings against the applicants and has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 9. The complainant is present in person and has been identified by the learned advocate for respondent No. 2. She has endorsed the stand taken by her in the affidavit. 10. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments made in the application as well as the contents of the affidavit. 11. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra), the Supreme Court has held that it is advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the courts should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings, since 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. The time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. 12. The time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. 12. This position of law has been reiterated in a more recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case o f Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another (supra). 13. In view of settlement between the parties and considering the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another (supra), the following order is passed: "The complaint, being C.R. No. II-3090/2013 registered with Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad, on 08.05.2013, in connection with offences under Sections-506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside." 14. The application is allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. 15. Direct Service is permitted.