NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2465/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2465 of 2014
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2469 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
CHIMANBHAI KARSANBHAI PARMAR & 1 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR FARSHEED KAVINA FOR MS TEJAL A VASHI(2704) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1,2
MS DIVYANGNA ZALA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 22/09/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though served, respondent no.2 - org. complainant has not appeared.
Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 29 20:30:52 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2465/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2023 undefined
2. By way of captioned petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners pray to quash the FIR being CR No.I-322 of 2013 lodged with Gotri Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 494, 498-A, 406, 420, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner would submit that petitioners of CR.MA No.2465 of 2014 are the in-laws of org. complainant; whereas petitioners of of CR.MA No.2469 of 2014 are the uncle of husband of org. complainant. He would further submit that though the case is rested on merits, he referred to the judgment rendered in Family (HMP) Suit No.76 of 2015 passed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara whereby upon settlement between the husband and wife, they have patched up their dispute and to part away from each other life and as such they have taken the divorce. He would further submit that parties have decided not to proceed further in any further offshoot proceeding. He would further submit that present proceedings is an offshoot to the marital dispute arose between them. Thus when parties have amicably settled their dispute and taken divorce from each other and living separately, allowing the proceedings in the nature of FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law. He would therefore submit to allow this petition.
4. On the other hand learned APP would submit that merely passing of the decree under the mutual consent would not absolve the petitioner from the offence committed prior thereto; the offence is not only committed against the complainant; but also against the society at large. She would further submit that Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 29 20:30:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2465/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2023 undefined role of the complainant is limited to move criminal machinery for taking action against the alleged offence and therefore merely the complainant compromised the marital dispute with the accused, the accused would not pressurize the Court to quash the FIR and therefore she submitted to dismiss the petitions.
5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the rival sides as well as applying anxious thoughts and considering the judgment rendered in Family (HMP) Suit No.76 of 2015 passed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara; relevant observations made therein is reproduced; what appears that parties have amicably settled their dispute and separated from each other life by putting end to the agitation against each other.
"2. The petitioners have come forward with a case that their marriage was solemnized on 26/04/2012, as per the customs of the Hindu Community, at Vadodara, and parties to this petition got their marriage registration before the Registrar of Marriage on 01/11/2012, thus, parties to this place between both the petitions, are legally wedded husband the passage wife. Thereafter, with the passage of time due to difference of opinion quarrels were being taken place between both the petitioners, hence, it was not possible for both the petitioners to stay together hence, as husband & wife under one roof, both the petitioners have been staying separately months. from each other for more than 22 months.
After having been separated from each other. though, many efforts were made by the petitioners' friends, elder family members. parents and relatives to reunite them, but, all efforts of them to reunite the petitioners proved futile. Thereafter, the petitioner-wife also preferred Cr.Misc. Appli.29/14 in the Family Court and Domestic Violence Appli. No. 256/14 in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.. are also withdrawn by the applicant, and even by executing divorce deed dtd.1/09/2014 [out of the Court) the parties to this petition both the parties to this petition have shown their stiff decision, As per the agreement agreed by and between the present parties, now, nothing to be recovered for the petitioner-wife from the petitioner-husband towards her Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 29 20:30:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2465/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2023 undefined maintenance, and she has given assurance that she would not demand for maintenance. Thereafter, after having been settled their accounts 11.e. after having handed over each and every items (whatever received by them during solemnization of their marriage to each other) both the petitioners have filed this petition under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, for obtaining divorce decree by mutual consent.
3. Petitioner-wife her mother have filed their examination in chief in the form of affidavits and his mother have also filed their examination in chief in the form of affidavits vide eh.9 C 10 respectively. Petitioners have placed on record zerox copies of their marriage registration certificate vide exh.12 and exh.13 respectively. By filing a purshis vide exh.14 the petitioners have closed their evidence.
4. Upon gone through the affidavits filed by both the petitioners with separate affidavits of their father & mother and supportive evidence such as petitioners' marriage registration certificate, it is clear that the petitioners' marriage was solemnized on 26/04/2012, as per the customs of the Hindu Community, at Vadodara, and parties to this petition got their marriage registration before the Registrar of Marriage on 01/11/2012, thus, parties to this petition are legally wedded husband & wife.
5. Having gone through the affidavits filed by both the petitioners, it transpires that after deteriorating marital relations between both the petitioners, not only various efforts were made by the elder family members, relatives and parents of the petitioners, but, the efforts were also made by the Court too to reunite the petitioners' marital relations, even though, all efforts proved futile. Furthermore, both the petitioners have been staying separately from each other for more than 22 months. Furthermore, the petitioner-wife has relinquished her right of maintenance/ alimony from the petitioner-husband, and both the petitioners have also given assurance that both will never claim against each other in any Court of law. By executing divorce deed (out of the Court) both the petitioners have shown their stiff decision that now they do not want to continue their marital relations. Therefore, how, there being no chance of reunion of the petitioners for their marital relations is concerned. Thus, considering all the attending circumstances of the present case on hand, it is clear that the petitioners' marital tie irretrievably failed, Justice dissolved. order. the and in the interest petitioners' marital tie be dissolved. Hence, I pass the Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 29 20:30:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2465/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2023 undefined following final order."
6. Considering the decision in case of State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors [1992 AIR 604] allowing the proceeding further would amount to abuse of process of law since the parties have amicably settled their dispute and therefore both the petitions deserve to be allowed.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions are allowed. FIR being CR No.I-322 of 2013 lodged with Gotri Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 494, 498-A, 406, 420, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all other consequential proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) sompura Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 29 20:30:52 IST 2023