Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1164 (GUJ)

Rameshbhai Jivabhai Vankar v. State of Gujarat

2017-07-03

A.J.DESAI

body2017
ORDER : A.J. DESAI, J. Mr. R.B Sharma, learned advocate states that he has instruction to appear on behalf of respondent No. 2-original complainant and shall file his appearance at the earliest. He has identified the original complainant, who is present in the Court and states that the matter is settled between the parties. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. Rule. Mr. L.B Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat and Mr. R.B Sharma, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2 - original complainant. 4. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed to quash the FIR being CR. No. II-88 of 2017 lodged with Godhara Taluka Police Station, Panchmahal for the offences punishable under sections 504, 506(2), etc. of the Indian Penal Code as well as all the consequential proceedings arising from the said FIR. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant has identified original complainant, who is present in the Court and who has filed Affidavit dated 03/07/2017, which is taken on the record. It appears from the Affidavit that compromise has been arrived at between the parties and original complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 as well as in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi reported in 2013(3) G.L.R 1875 and submitted that since the matter is settled between the parties, there is no need to proceed further with the trial. 7. It is the case of applicant that now there is no dispute between the applicant and original complainant. 8. Mr. L.B Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed this application and submitted that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the impugned FIR may not be quashed. 9. 7. It is the case of applicant that now there is no dispute between the applicant and original complainant. 8. Mr. L.B Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed this application and submitted that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the impugned FIR may not be quashed. 9. I have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the impugned FIR as well as Affidavit filed by the original complainant dated 03/07/2017, which reads as under: “I, Govindbhai Ravsurbhai Charan, Aged about 35, Male, Residing at Village Vavdi-Khurd, Charannes Faliyu, Tal. Godhara, Dist. Panchmahal, the respondent no. 2-original complainant, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: 1. That I am the original complainant of a complaint registered at Godhara Taluka Police Station, Dist. Panchmahal being II-C.R No. 88/2017 for the offences punishable u/s.504 and 506(2) of I.P.C filed against the present applicant. 2. That due to the intervention of the respectable persons of the village, now there is a compromise between the applicant and myself the complainant. I say that in view of the compromise between the parties, I don't have any grievance against the present applicant-original accused. 3. I therefore say and submit that the complaint filed by me against the present applicant - original accused may be quashed and I have no objection for the same for quashing the complaint against the applicant of this application which is at Annexure-A. What is state above is true. Solemnly affirmed on this 3rd day of July, 2017 at Ahmedabad.” 10. It appears from the Affidavit that the applicant and respondent No. 2 - original complainant have arrived at compromise and the original complainant has no objection, if the impugned FIR is quashed. 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is now resolved, the present application is allowed. The FIR being CR. No. II-88 of 2017 lodged with Godhara Taluka Police Station, Panchmahal for the offences punishable under sections 504, 506(2), etc. of the Indian Penal Code as well as all the consequential proceedings arising from the said FIR, are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant only. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 12. Direct service is permitted.