Gujarat High Court
Komal Manishbhai Majethiya vs State Of Gujarat on 15 February, 2021
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
R/CR.MA/19471/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19471 of 2020
=====================================================
KOMAL MANISHBHAI MAJETHIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=====================================================
Appearance:
MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA(2475) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MOXA THAKKAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 15/02/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Archana R. Acharya
for the applicant, learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar
for the respondentState and learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Yogesh Lakhani with learned
Advocate Mr. Darshan Varandani for the original
complainant.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocates
waives service of rule on behalf of the
respectiverespondents.
3. With the consent of learned Advocate for the
applicant and learned Advocate for the
respondents, present application is taken up for
final disposal today.
R/CR.MA/19471/2020 ORDER
4. By way of this application, the applicant prays
for quashing of criminal complaint being FIR
No.IC.R. No.4 of 2018 registered with
Gandhidham 'A' Division Police Station, Kutch
East, Gandhidam on 5th January, 2018 for the
offences punishable under Sections 376, 504 and
506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Learned Advocate Ms. Archana Acharya for the
applicant submits that a perusal of the
complaint revels that dispute between the
parties was very personal in nature whereas she
also submits that pursuant to the filing of the
complaint, chargesheet had been filed by the
investigating agency and whereas the trial has
also proceeded. She further draws attention to
this Court to an agreement/settlement deed at
page No.34A to the present petition whereby the
parties have settled the dispute/issue between
themselves and whereas under such circumstances,
she submits that no fruitful purpose would be
served in permitting the Sessions Case No.32 of
2018 arising from the complaint mentioned herein
above to be permitted to continue any further.
6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Yogesh Lakhani along
with learned Advocate Mr. Darshan Varandani
reiterated what has been submitted by the
learned Advocate Ms. Archana Acharya. Learned
Senior Advocate Mr. Lakhani draws the attention
to the last page of the settlement deed at Page
R/CR.MA/19471/2020 ORDER
No.34 referred to herein above which shows that
the settlement had been arrived at between the
family members of respondent No.2 as well as
family members of the present applicant. Learned
Senior Advocate Mr. Lakhani further submits that
while this was a personal issue but the same had
effected both the families of the applicant as
well as accused and whereas the on account of
the intervention of family members the entire
issue has been resolved and therefore, he
submits that this Court may quash the complaint
as well as the proceedings arising therefrom.
7. Learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar submits that since
the trial arising from the complaint has already
begun and has proceeded further, therefore she
submits that the trial should be permitted to
reach its logical.
8. Having heard leaned Advocates for the respective
parties and learned Senior Advocate for the
parties, this Court is of the opinion that since
the allegation levelled in the compliant reflect
a private dispute between the the parties and
since the agreement deed at Page No.34A clearly
shows that parties including the family members
of both the parties have sought to resolve the
dispute therefore no fruitful purpose would be
served by permitting the complainant as well as
the Sessions Case No. 32 of 2018 to proceed any
further.
R/CR.MA/19471/2020 ORDER
9. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Yogesh Lakhani with
learned Advocate Mr. Darshan Varandani request
permission to appear on behalf of the respondent
No.2original accused.
10. Having heard learned advocates for the
respective parties, this Court is of the opinion
that looking to the averments made in the
affidavit/Settlement Deed between the parties,
dated 7th September, 2019, more particularly,
since the issue is resolved and that the
complainant does not wish to proceed further
with the impugned FIR 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,
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.
11. In view of the discussions and observations
above, the criminal complaint being being FIR
No.IC.R. No.4 of 2018 registered with
Gandhidham 'A' Division Police Station, Kutch
East, Gandhidam on 5th January, 2018 for the
offences punishable under Sections 376, 504 and
506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sessions
Case No.32 of 2018 are hereby quashed and set
R/CR.MA/19471/2020 ORDER
aside qua the present applicant.
Rule is made absolute. Registry is directed to
communicate this order to the concerned Police
Station through Email immediately.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Pallavi
