Gujarat High Court
Jaswantbhai Kantubhai Damor vs State Of Gujarat on 25 January, 2021
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
R/CR.MA/375/2021 ORDER
IN THEHIGHCOURTOF GUJARATAT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINALMISC.APPLICATIONNO. 375 of 2021
=============================================================================
JASWANTBHAIKANTUBHAIDAMOR
Versus
STATEOF GUJARAT
============================================================================
Appearance:
URJAB DAVE(7461)for the Applicant(s)No. 1,2
KURVENK DESAI(7786)for the Respondent(s)No. 2
MS. MAITHILIMEHTAADDL.PUBLICPROSECUTOR(2)for the Respondent(s)No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date: 25/01/2021
ORALORDER
Heard learned Advocate Ms. Urja B. Dave for the applicants, and
learned Advocate Shri Kurven K. Desai for the respondent no.2 original
complainant and learned APP Ms. Mehta for the respondentState.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta
waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 and learned
Advocate Shri Kurven K. Desai for the respondent no.2original
complainant.
3. Learned Advocate Shri Tarun Sharma for Shri Kurven K. Desai is
permitted to file his vakalatnama on behalf of the originalcomplainant.
4. By way of present application, the applicant prays for quashing of
the FIR, bearing number 39/2016, registered with Limdi police station,
Dahod for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 363, 114 of IPC
and Sections 4,17 of the POCSO Act.
R/CR.MA/375/2021 ORDER
5. Learned Advocate Ms. Urja Dave 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. She 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 Tarun Sharma, submits that an affidavit
confirming about the settlement is filed by the complainant. Learned
Advocate for the applicant further submits that the original complainant
is present in his office and that he may be permitted to join the meeting.
Permission is granted. Complainant Kasubhai Somabhai Kishori who
has been identified by learned advocate Shri Tarun Sharma who upon
inquiry by this Court has confirmed that the matter is settled between
the applicants and the complainant. The complainant further submits
that 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) 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 190 and Narinder Singh @ Ors. Vs. State of
R/CR.MA/375/2021 ORDER
Punajab & Anr reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), this Court is of
the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served, if the compliant is
proceeded any further.
9. In view of the discussions and observations made herein above,
FIR bearing No. I 39 of 2016 dated 19.4.2016 registered before Limdi
police station, Dahod for the offence punishable under Sections 366,
363, 114 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 17 of the POCSO Act is
hereby quashed qua the present applicants.
10. Rule is made absolute. Registry is directed to communicate this
order to the concerned Police Station through email immediately.
(NIKHILS. KARIEL,J)
MARYVADAKKAN
