Gujarat High Court
Sanjaybhai Ravjibhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 1 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17093/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 17093 of 2019
==========================================================
SANJAYBHAI RAVJIBHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DARSHAN P DAVE(5928) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being I C.R. No.24 of 2015 registered with Vidhyanagar Police Station, Anand for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC") are not attracted in the present case, considering the consensual nature of the relationship and subsequent developments.
3. In support of his submission, learned advocate placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 614, and submitted that in an identical factual scenario, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although the trial court lacks jurisdiction to record a settlement in Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:53:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17093/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined such offences, it would nevertheless be appropriate for the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.
4. A copy of the marriage certificate has been placed on record, and the affidavit of the victim affirms that she married the petitioner and they are living their happy married life. This, according to learned advocate, clearly indicates that there is no justification for subjecting the petitioner to face the rigours of trial.
5. It was also submitted that the petitioner and daughter of the complainant are now blessed with a baby girl, and the couple is leading a harmonious and stable married life. In light of these developments, it is submitted that the present petition may be allowed in the interest of justice.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the FIR. It was submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR pertain to offences under the IPC and that such offences must be dealt with seriously. However, the Court may consider the peculiar facts of the case, including the subsequent marriage and settled family life of the parties, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
7. Having heard the learned advocates for both sides and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel (supra). The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"6. Our attention is invited to the affidavit filed by the third respondent in which she has accepted the fact that she is happily married to the appellant and they have been residing together. She has disclosed her date of birth as 20th July, 1998. In the record of the Primary School, as can be seen from document at Annexure 'P-1', the Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:53:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17093/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined date of birth of the third respondent is shown as 20th July, 1998. Ossification test was conducted during the investigation. The report of the test is that on the date of commission of the offence, the age of the third respondent may be between 17½ years to 19 years. There are documents on record to show that the date of birth of the third respondent was 20th July, 1998. Therefore, when the offence was allegedly committed in September, 2016 she was already a major.
7. Now that the appellant and third respondent are happily married, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution as it will cause undue harassment to the appellant, the third respondent and their children.
8. Coming to the impugned order, we find that the marriage certificate was placed on record before the High Court. In fact, no objection by the first informant is also recorded in the impugned order. Surprisingly, the High Court instead of entertaining the petition for quashing on the ground of settlement, has observed that the application for dropping criminal proceedings on the basis compromise may be moved before the Trial Court. The High Court completely lost sight of the fact that the Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement and in fact, this was a fit case for the High Court to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. by quashing the proceedings. Unnecessarily, the parties have been forced to come to this Court."
8. The facts of the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court are identical to those of the present case. In the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the victim was 17 years of age, and a marriage certificate issued by the competent authority reflected that subsequent to the alleged incident, the victim had entered into matrimony with the accused. The victim had also filed an affidavit affirming that she was happily married.
9. In the present case, the birth certificate of the victim reflects that she was born on 24.7.1999, whereas the date of the alleged incident, as per the FIR, is 5.3.2015. The marriage certificate placed on record indicates that the marriage between the petitioner and the victim was solemnized on 8.8.2019.
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:53:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17093/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined
10. Relevant portion of the affidavit filed by the victim is as under:-
"1.That I am the victim of a complaintfiled before Vidhyanagar Police Station Dist-Anand being I C.R. No. 24/2015 for the offence punishable U/s. 363, 366 of the I.P.C.
2. That I say and submit that I had gone with applicant my own wish with. That there was a love affairs between me and applicant! That my birth date is 24/07/1999 and at present I am major. That after attending my age of majority I and applicant married on 08/08/2019. Since I and applicant are residing together as husband and wife. And I blessed with baby girl born on 16/01/2020 during our marriage wed luck.
3. I therefore say and submit that the complaint filed by my father against the present Applicant - original accused may. be quashed and I have no objection for the same for quashing the complaint against the applicant of this application which is at Annexure-A. What, is stated above is true."
11. In view of the foregoing, since the victim is now living a happy and settled matrimonial life of her own volition, having attained the age of majority, subjecting the petitioner to the rigours of trial at this stage would amount to unwarranted harassment and abuse of the process of law.
12. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby ALLOWED. The FIR being I C.R. No.24 of 2015 registered with Vidhyanagar Police Station, Anand for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner herein.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 22:53:51 IST 2025