Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1717 (GUJ)

Mahendra Ambalal Vasava v. State of Gujarat

2017-10-03

A.J.DESAI

body2017
ORDER : A.J. DESAI, J. 1. Mr. Jignesh Nayak, 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. Amin, learned Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat and Mr. Nayak, 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-151 of 2017 lodged with Karjan Police Station, Vadodara for the offences punishable under sections 354-B, 114, etc. of the Indian Penal Code as well as all the consequential proceedings arising from the said FIR. 5. 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 03/10/2017, 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)] 54 (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. Amin, learned PP 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. Amin, learned PP 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 03/10/2017, which reads as under: “I, Sangitaben W/o Rajeshbhai Khiliyabhai Vasava, am original complainant in FIR being C.R.No, I-151/2017 dated 20.08.2017 with Karjan Police Station, District-Vadodara under sections-354B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. I say and submit that I am the original complainant in the FIR being C.R No. I-151/2017 dated 20.08.2017 with Karjan Police Station, Dist.- Vadodara and now the matter is amicably settled between parties. 3. I say and submit that the matter is amicably settled between the parties, so now in have no grievance with the original accused in the said FIR, so if this Hon'ble Court quash and set aside the FIR which is being CR No. I-151/2017 registered before the Karjan Police Station, District Rajkot on 20.08.2017 I say that the said complaint is now settled qua applicant Mahendra Ambalal Vasava so I have no objection if this Hon'ble Court quash and set aside the impugned FIR qua present applicant. 4. I say and submit that unfortunate incident occurred due to some misunderstanding between applicant and complainant and now I have no grievance against the original accused. 5. I say and submits that deponent also filed affidavit before Public Notary by stating that present deponent/complainant not written name of the Mahendra Ambalal Vasava and complainant is not gave name of applicant and also I request to delete name of applicant Mahendra Ambalal Vasava. A copy of Affidavit dated 01-09-2017 is here Annexure-R-1. 6. I say and submit that now if the FIR filed by me is quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court than I have no objection and now entire matter is amicably settled between the parties. 7. A copy of Affidavit dated 01-09-2017 is here Annexure-R-1. 6. I say and submit that now if the FIR filed by me is quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court than I have no objection and now entire matter is amicably settled between the parties. 7. I say and submit that I given assurance before this Hon'ble Court that I would maintain healthy relationship with each other while garnering no ill will or malice against each other, as the all re residing in the same village and now no grudge remain to each other and due to intervention of the elders in village now matter is amicably settled. Both the parties reiterate that there remains no acrimony/grudge between them, so now there remains no grudge and if this Hon'ble Court quash and set aside this above FIR qua applicant then I have no objection. 8. I say and submit that if this Hon'ble Court not consider this amicable settlement then relationship between parties became more harden so in the interest of justice be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR qua applicant which is being CR No. I-151/2017 before the Karjan Police Station, District Vadodara Dated-20.08.2017.” 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 grievance against the applicant and the matter is amicably settled between the parties. 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-151 of 2017 lodged with Karjan Police Station, Vadodara for the offences punishable under sections 354-B, 114, 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.