Sakaria (Sanghvi) Dineshkumar ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 1592 Guj

      R/CR.MA/9074/2016                                         ORDER




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO.                   9074 of 2016

=====================================================
 SAKARIA (SANGHVI) DINESHKUMAR THANMALJI & 3 other(s)
                         Versus
             STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR MIG MANSURI(444) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MOXA THAKKER, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                          Date : 03/02/2021

                              ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. MIG Mansuri for the applicants, Ms. Moxa Thakker, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1­State and Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate for the original complainant­respondent No.2 herein.

2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates waives service of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. By way of this application, the applicants have prayed for quashing of criminal complaint being C.R. No.52 of 2016 registered with Unjha Police Station, Mehsana for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the

R/CR.MA/9074/2016 ORDER

Dowry Prohibition Act. Originally this Court, Coram: Honourable Ms.Justice Sonia Gokani while issuing notice had directed that investigation shall continue but no coercive action may be taken against the applicants herein. Learned advocate Mr. Mansuri on behalf of the applicants submits that the complaint was essentially a matrimonial dispute where offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 114 of the India Penal Code and punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act had been alleged. He further submits that while the applicants before this Court are in­laws of the complainant, the husband of the complainant had not preferred any quashing application and whereas he further submits that during interregnum a settlement had been arrived at between the parties and on basis of the said settlement, the husband whose case had proceeded ahead and culminated into Criminal Case No.491 of 2018, had been acquitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Unjha vide judgment and order dated 12.02.2020. He further draws the attention of this Court through relevant observations made by the learned trial Court in the said judgment which clearly shows that settlement had been arrived at between the parties and the complainant had turn hostile at the stage of trial. A copy of the separation/settlement be also placed on record along with the order of the trial Court by learned advocate Mr. Mansuri which are directed

R/CR.MA/9074/2016 ORDER

to be taken on record. The facts of the settlement is also not disputed by the learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the original complainant. He further submits that since the settlement has been arrived at between the parties in December, 2019 and now since both the husband and wife have moved on in life and more particularly since facts of the settlement is recorded in the order of learned Trial Court therefore, the original complainant may not be required to attain the present proceedings. He submits that the original complaint impugned herein may be quashed and the present petition be allowed.

4. Learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar submits that in view of the settlement arrived between the parties and in view of the order passed by the trial Court, an appropriate orders may be passed by this Court.

5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, in view of the fact that the settlement has been arrived at between the parties, copy of the settlement has been produced and further more since the learned trial court has taken note of the settlement arrived at between the parties and since the original complainant, i.e. the wife had turned hostile at the stage of trial, and whereas the husband was acquitted by the Trial Court, therefore this Court is of the opinion that no

R/CR.MA/9074/2016 ORDER

fruitful purpose would be served if the complaint to sought for quashed qua the present applicants. Thus taking into consideration the fact of settlement between the parties and the settlement having been noted by the learned trial Court, and considering the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), no fruitful purpose would be served, if the complaint is proceeded any further.

6. In view of the discussions and observations above, the criminal complaint being C.R. No.52 of 2016 registered with Unjha Police Station, Mehsana for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed and set aside qua the present applicants.

7. Rule is made absolute. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Police Station through Email immediately.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Pallavi