Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 293 (GUJ)

ABRARKHAN YUNUSKHAN PATHAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2018-01-29

J.B.PARDIWALA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Thakkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1-State of Gujarat. Mr. Mahesh Poojara, the learned advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2-original complainant and waives service of notice of rule. 2. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this court, praying for quashing of the first information report being II C.R. No. 3254 of 2017 lodged before the Gaekwad Haveli Police Station of the offence punishable under sections 323 and 294(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 135(1) of the G.P. Act on the ground that there has been an amicable settlement between the parties and the respondent No.2-original complainant is no longer desirous of prosecuting the first information report further. The respondent No.2-Javed Iqbalbhai Pipadwala is personally present and he confirms about the settlement arrived at with the accused person. The respondent No.2- Javed Iqbalbhai Pipadwala is identified by his learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Poojara. Shri Javed Iqbalbhai Pipadwala has also filed an affidavit, inter alia, stating as under: “I, Javed Iqbalbhai Pipadwala, Aged 29 years, Sex: Male, Religion: Muslim, Residing at House No.4010, Vasant Rajab Chowk, Jamalpur, Ahmedabad, respondent no.2 herein (Original complainant), do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under; 1. I say and submit that I happened to be the original complainant here in connection with the First Information Report filed at Annexure-A as C.R. No.II-3254 of 2017 for the offences punishable under 323 & 294(B) of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of G.P. Act and therefore, I am competent to file the present affidavit as I am aware about the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. I say and submit that after the registration of the aforementioned First Information Report, the dispute between the parties have been amicably settled and therefore as of now there is no ill-will or grievance between the parties. 3. I say and submit that with the intervention of family members, relatives and friends, the grievance and dispute between the parties have been resolved and therefore, the deponent herein has no objection if the impugned first information report mentioned is quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court. 4. 3. I say and submit that with the intervention of family members, relatives and friends, the grievance and dispute between the parties have been resolved and therefore, the deponent herein has no objection if the impugned first information report mentioned is quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court. 4. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned first information report came to be filed under some serious misunderstanding and misconception of facts. It is submitted that thereafter, the said dispute between the parties have been amicably resolved and they have decided to bury their grievances. Moreover, we are residing happily now and therefore also, the case of present petitioner requires consideration and therefore, considering the fact that the dispute between the parties have been amicably settled, the respondent no.2 herein has no objection for quashment of the first information report in the interest of justice. Solemnly affirmed at Ahmedabad on day of January, 2018.” 3. Taking into consideration the nature of the dispute and the fact that the parties have now amicably decided to live peacefully, no useful purpose would be served to allow the police to continue with the investigation of the said first information report. 4. In the result, this application is allowed. The first information report being II C.R. No. 3254 of 2017 lodged before the Gaekwad Haveli Police Station is hereby ordered to be quashed. All consequential proceedings arising from the same also stand terminated. Rule is made absolute. The Registry shall accept the Vakalatnama of Mr. Mahesh Poojara, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. Direct service is permitted.