Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1860 (GUJ)

Bajranglal Raghunathdas Goel v. State of Gujarat

2016-09-01

SONIA GOKANI

body2016
ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J. Leave to amend. Cause title of the petition is permitted to be amended, and the husband to be joined as petitioner no. 3. 2. The petitioners no. 1 and 2 herein are respectively in-laws and the newly added petitioner no. 3 is the husband of the respondent No. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashment of FIR being I-C.R No. 230 of 2013 registered with Satellite Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 294, 506(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Parties have been litigating before various forums. It appears that, Family Suit No. 669 of 2014 was preferred seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 34 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995. It has been decreed by the concerned Family Court and the marriage of the petitioner no. 3 and respondent no. 2 herein has been dissolved from the date of decree dated 12.01.2015 by the learned Family Judge, Ahmedabad under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 4. This Court also notices that there is an affidavit-cum-declaration wherein the respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all the cases filed and pending against the husband-petitioner no. 3 and her in-laws pursuant to the said settlement. It would be appropriate to reproduce the said para 4 of the said document. “4. I deponent No. 1 hereby state that the said house which is been given to me as permanent one time alimony against which I agreed to withdraw all the cases filed and pending against Suryakant Bajrangla Goel, his family and relatives. Moreover it has been agreed between both the parties that the said Gift Deed shall be deemed to cancelled if I the deponent do not withdraw the cases mentioned above, after video conference and grant of divorce by the family court U/Sec 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act. And whereas Suryakant Bajaranglal Goel and his family members have agreed to withdraw all cases pending against me and my family at Nagpur or Ahmedabad which they shall do all deeds necessary, at the time execution of registered Gift Deed.” 5. And whereas Suryakant Bajaranglal Goel and his family members have agreed to withdraw all cases pending against me and my family at Nagpur or Ahmedabad which they shall do all deeds necessary, at the time execution of registered Gift Deed.” 5. This Court has also verified from the complainant, who is present before this Court, with regard to truthfulness of the contents of the declaration so also whether she has received any alimony permanent in nature as stated in para 4 of the document to which it has been stated that no grievances remain. 6. Considering the decision of Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 so also the compromise arrived at between the parties and the fact that though in some of the offences are not compoundable, in the larger interest of both the parties and families and to set all the disputes at rest, the Court needs to step in and permit the quashment of FIR in some offences and accordingly this Court quashes the FIR filed by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioners being I-C.R No. 230 of 2013 registered with Satellite Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 294, 506(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 7. Direct service is permitted.