Gujarat High Court
Ajaybhai Sureshbhai Narayani vs State Of Gujarat on 22 January, 2021
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
R/CR.MA/20300/2020 ORDER
IN THEHIGHCOURTOF GUJARATAT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINALMISC.APPLICATIONNO. 20300of 2020
==========================================================
AJAYBHAISURESHBHAINARAYANI
Versus
STATEOF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRPRADIPJ PATEL(5896)for the Applicant(s)No. 1,2,3
MS. MAITHILIMEHTAADDL.PUBLICPROSECUTOR(2)for the Respondent(s)No. 1
V D MARU(7547)for the Respondent(s)No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date: 22/01/2021
ORALORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Shri. Pradip J. Patel for the applicant,
who at the outset submits that the matter is settled between the
parties and learned Advocate Ms. V.D. Maru may be permitted to
join the meeting along with the complainant- Manjulaben Chunilall
Mavi.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta
waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent no.1 and learned
Advocate Shri V. D Maru waives service of Rule on behalf of the
respondent no.2- original complainant.
3. Learned Advocate Shri V. D. Maru is permitted to file his
vakalatnama on behalf of the original-complainant.
4. By way present application, the applicant prays for quashing
of the FIR bearing CR. No. 11207025201812 of 2020, registered
with Godhra Town 'A' Division Police Station, District Panchmahal
R/CR.MA/20300/2020 ORDER
on 28.11.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504,
506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 135 of
Gujarat Police Act and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)3(s), 3(2)(V) of
Atrocities Act.
5. Learned Advocate Shri Patel for the applicant, submits that
after filing of the complaint, which was on account of
misunderstanding, the dispute is settled between the applicant and
the respondent no.2. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served,
if the complaint is not quashed. He submits that the complaint be
quashed against the present applicant.
6. Learned APP Ms. Mehta strongly opposed the quashing of the
complaint and she further submits that the offences committed by
the applicants are serious in nature and, therefore, no indulgence
may be shown.
7. Learned Advocate Shri Maru submits that an affidavit
confirming about the settlement is filed by the complainant and he
has identified the complainant Manjulaben Chunilal Mavi who upon
inquiry by this Court has confirmed that the matter is settled
between the applicants and the complainant. The complainant
further submits that he would not have any objection if the
complaint is quashed.
8. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective
parties and more particularly, considering the affidavit filed by
the original complainant on 20.1.2020 but the same is not
placed on record. Considering the judgments of the Supreme
Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab &
Anr., reported in (2012) 10SCC 303, Madan Mohan
R/CR.MA/20300/2020 ORDER
Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC
582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Cenral 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. Sate of Punajb & Anr reported in 2014
(2) Crime 67(SC), this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful
purpose would be served, if the complaint is proceeded an
further.
9. In view of the discussions and observations above, FIR
bearing CR. No. 11207025201812 of 2020, registered with Godhra
Town 'A' Division Police Station, District Panchmahal on 28.11.2020
for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of
the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act
and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)3(s), 3(2)(V) of Atrocities Act, qua
the present applicant is hereby quashed.
10. Rule is made absolute. Registry is directed to communicate
this order to the concerned Police station through E-mail
immediately.
11. The vakalatnama of Shri Maru for the respondent no.2 may
be kept in record as well as in the affidavit, as submitted by learned
Advocate Shri. Maru.
(NIKHILS. KARIEL,J)
MARYVADAKKAN
