Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1646 (GUJ)

Shaileshbhai Manilal 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. Darshaliben Hasmukhbhai Patel - Original complainant is present in the Court and is identified by Mr. Narendra Jain, learned advocate state that he has instruction to appear for respondent No. 2. He is permitted to file his appearance. Her Affidavit is placed on record. 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 applicant 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 applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR bearing I.C.R No. 37 of 2016 registered with Ankleshwar City Police Station, Bharuch, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicant. 5. Learned advocate for the applicant 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 applicant. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicant 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. 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 applicant. The learned advocate for respondent No. 2 also relied upon the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 - Darshaliben Hasmukhbhai Patel dated 14.9.2017 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 applicant 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 applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant. 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 I.C.R No. 37 of 2016 registered with Ankleshwar City Police Station, Bharuch, filed against the present applicant is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing I.C.R No. 37 of 2016 registered with Ankleshwar City Police Station, Bharuch, filed against the present applicant is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside qua the applicant. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. 10. Since, the FIR is quashed and set aside, the applicant shall be released forthwith. 11. Direct Service Today is permitted.