Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1166 (GUJ)

Parag Arvindbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat

2017-07-03

A.J.DESAI

body2017
ORDER : A.J. DESAI, J. Mr. Manish 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. Rakesh Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf respondent No. 1-State of Gujarat and Mr. 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 C.R No. I-150 of 2009 lodged with Sabarmati City Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 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 15/06/2017, 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. Rakesh Patel, 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. Rakesh Patel, 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 15/06/2017, which reads as under: “I, Rinku Prakashbhai Nayi, aged 23 years, the respondent No. 2 herein - original complainant, do hereby state on oath as under:— 1. That I am the complainant - respondent no. 2. I had lodged an FIR against the petitioner being I CR No. 150 of 2009 registered with Sabarmati City Police Station, Sabarmati, for the offences punishable u/s 363, 366 and 376 of IPC. 2. That I am now a major and can take decisions on my own. I have now been married and living happily in my matrimonial home and henceforth, do not want to proceed further so far as the impugned FIR is concerned. It is further submitted that I, original complainant, do not wish to proceed with the criminal case and thereafter, if the case is to proceed further, the same would lead to shameful and embarrassing situation for me and other family members and therefore, I would prefer not to step into the witness box and give evidence against the petitioner as the dispute is already settled. Furthermore, I have not been facing any kind of harassment from the petitioner herein, as also from the family members or relatives of the petitioner herein. 3. That the accused persons have filed quashing petition before this Hon'ble Court on the ground of settlement. 4. That since the dispute is settled between us, no formalities are to be done between us and I have no objection if the said FIR is quashed and set aside without entering into the merits of the case. Solemnly affirmed at Ahmedabad on this 15th day of June, 2017.” 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. Solemnly affirmed at Ahmedabad on this 15th day of June, 2017.” 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. It is the say of the prosecutrix that she had married and she does not want to proceed further with the case. 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 C.R No. I-150 of 2009 lodged with Sabarmati City Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 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.