Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1172 (GUJ)

Salim Musa Kumbhar v. State of Gujarat

2017-07-03

A.J.DESAI

body2017
ORDER : A.J. DESAI, J. Mr. Mahesh Poojara, learned advocate has identified the respondent No. 2 - 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 respondent No. 1-State of Gujarat and Mr. Mahesh Poojara, 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-72 of 2017 lodged with “B” Division Police Station, Gandhidham-Kutch, for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, etc. of the Indian Penal Code as well as all the consequential proceedings arising from the said FIR. 5. Mr. Mahesh Poojara, 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. I have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the impugned FIR. It is not a case of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Original complainant agreed that as and when his daughter, who is around 16 ½ years would get majority, she will permit to do as per her wish. 9. I have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the impugned FIR. It is not a case of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Original complainant agreed that as and when his daughter, who is around 16 ½ years would get majority, she will permit to do as per her wish. Affidavit filed by the original complainant dated 03/07/2017, which reads as under: “I, Santoshkumar Amarprasad Shrivastava, Male, Age 36 years, Occupation Labour Work, Residing at present Kargo, Azadnagar, Gandhidham, Kutch, original residing at Village-Ramnagar, Chhota Bankot Pana Magholia, Post Jagdishpur, District Betia, State Bihar, the complainant, herein do hereby solemnly affirm and file this affidavit as under: 1. I say and submit that I have lodged First Information Report against the petitioner with B-Division Police Station, Gandhidham Kutch as I-C.R No. 72 of 2017 and as I am the original complainant I am aware about the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, filing this affidavit. 2. I say and submit that, on account of minor misunderstanding and misconception resulted into filing of the FIR with the help of friends, relative and people of community, dispute is no longer exists, we all known to each other since long at present relation between us as cordial and as dispute is amicably resolved, this Honourable Court pleased to terminate the proceedings as prayed for. I have no objection and I have entered into the settlement with the petitioner on my free will and wish without there being any undue pressure. Solemnly affirmed at Ahmedabad on this 3rd day of July, 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. 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-72 of 2017 lodged with “B” Division Police Station, Gandhidham-Kutch for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 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.