Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1641 (GUJ)

Mohammed Yahya Imadali Patel v. State of Gujarat

2017-09-14

A.J.DESAI

body2017
ORDER : A.J. DESAI, J. 1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Learned advocate Mr. Daifraz Havewalla states that he has an instructions to appear for the complainant. He is permitted to file his appearance forthwith. 2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 3. Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the applicants and respondent No. 2 has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith. 4. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR bearing CR No. I-165 of 2017 registered with Athwalines Police Station, Surat for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(I)(N) of the IPC as well as under Sections 4, 5(J)(ii), 6 of the POCSO Act. 5. Learned advocate for the applicants has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicants. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No. 2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. It is therefore submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code and allow the application as prayed for. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the present application and submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint in question may not be quashed and the present application may be rejected. 7. Learned advocate for respondent No. 2 has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the present application and submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint in question may not be quashed and the present application may be rejected. 7. Learned advocate for respondent No. 2 has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. The learned advocate for respondent No. 2 also relied upon the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 - Chandbibi Mohammed Rafik Shaikh, dated 11.9.2017 Respondent No. 2 is present in person before the Court and is identified by learned advocate for respondent No. 2. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No. 2 has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No. 2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31 , Manoj Sharma v. State, reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2014 (2) Crimes 67 (SC), it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code. 9. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing C.R No. I-165 of 2017 registered with Athwalines Police Station, Surat is hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. As the applicants are in the judicial custody, they shall be released forthwith. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. As the applicants are in the judicial custody, they shall be released forthwith. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. 10. Direct service today is permitted.