Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1168 (GUJ)

Bhupendrasinh Jiluji Bihola v. State of Gujarat

2017-07-03

A.J.DESAI

body2017
ORDER : A.J. DESAI, J. Mr. Dhruvil Merchant, 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. Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat and Mr. Merchant, 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 applicants have prayed to quash the FIR being CR. No. II-38 of 2017 lodged with Mansa Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offence punishable under sections 279, 323, 114, etc. of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 177 and 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as all the consequential proceedings arising from the said FIR. 5. Mr. Merchant, 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 16/06/2017, 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 applicants 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 applicants that now there is no dispute between the applicants and original complainant. 8. Mr. Amin, learned 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 applicants that now there is no dispute between the applicants and original complainant. 8. Mr. Amin, learned 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 16/06/2017, which reads as under: “I, Rajveersinh Karansinh Bihola, Hindu, female, Aged about 26 years, Occupation-Student, Residing at Village-Maekpur, Taluka-Mansa, District-Gandhinagar, complainant of complaint registered vide C.R No. II-38/2007 under Sections 279, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 177 and 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered with Mansa Police Station, District-Gandhinagar, have perused the copy of the petition filed by the petitioner. That I being conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and also competent to depose submit my reply, which is as under: That I am the complainant of Criminal Complaint registered vide CR. No. II-38/2017 under Sections 279, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 177 and 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered with Mansa Police Station, District-Gandhinagar, against the accused named therein. I state that upon the intervention of the prominent members of the village, elderly persons, friends and mediators, an amicable settlement has been aggrieved at between me and the accused and since the offences alleged against are personal in nature not affecting any interest of the State Government, I have agreed to compromise the entire dispute including the impugned complaint filed by me and the proceedings that have arisen pursuant to the filing of the complaint. I state and submit that this affidavit is filed without any pressure, coercion or force and I am bound to respect the same and therefore, I accord my consent to this Hon'ble Court to quash the criminal complaint CR. No. II-38/2017 under Sections 279, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 177 and 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered with Mansa Police Station, District-Gandhinagar and all other consequential proceedings, against the petitioners original accused named in the complaint, which would serve the purpose of justice. 2. No. II-38/2017 under Sections 279, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 177 and 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered with Mansa Police Station, District-Gandhinagar and all other consequential proceedings, against the petitioners original accused named in the complaint, which would serve the purpose of justice. 2. I crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to add, amend, alter, remove, delete, rescind or modify any or all contentions or averments stated hereinabove. Solemnly affirmed at Ahmedabad on this the 16th day of June, 2017.” 10. It appears from the Affidavit that the applicants and respondent No. 2 - original complainant have jointly 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-38 of 2017 lodged with Mansa Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offence punishable under sections 279, 323, 114, etc. of the Indian Penal Code and Section 177 & 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as all the consequential proceedings arising from the said FIR, are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants only. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 12. Direct service is permitted.