Gujarat High Court
Kunal Ravindra Chaphbekar vs State Of Gujarat on 27 January, 2021
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
R/CR.MA/89/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 89 of 2021
============================================
KUNAL RAVINDRA CHAPHBEKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
============================================
Appearance:
MR. BHAVIK P SHAH(6391) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MAULIK SONI for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MD MEHTA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 27/01/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bhavik P. Shah for the applicant,
learned APP Ms. M.D. Mehta for the respondent No.1 - State and learned
Advocate Shri Maulik Soni for the respondent No.2.
2. Rule. Learned APP Ms. M.D. Mehta waives service of Rule for the
respondent No.1 - State and learned Advocate Shri Maulik Soni waives
service of Rule for the respondent No.2 - original complainant.
3. By way of present application, the applicant prays for quashing of the
complaint being I C.R. No. 44 of 2019 registered with Mahila Police Station
(East), Ahmedabad, dated 12.08.2019 for the offences under Sections
498(A), 323, 294(b), 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 &
7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(5-a), 5(a) of
the Atrocity Act.
R/CR.MA/89/2021 ORDER
4. Learned Advocate for the applicant and learned Advocate for the
complainant submit that during the pendency of the present application, the
matter is settled between the parties and the complainant would not have
any objection, if the complaint is quashed. Learned Advocate for the
complainant submits that the complainant has already filed an affidavit to
this regard and she is present in the office of learned Advocate Shri Nayab
Ajmeri and she may be permitted to join the meeting. Permission is granted.
Learned Advocate Shri Nayab Ajmeri, who has joined meeting and
has identified the complainant. The complainant - Falguniben Navnitbhai
Vasadiya has joined the meeting and upon inquiry by this Court, he
confirms the fact of settlement.
5. Both the learned Advocates for the parties submit that no fruitful
purpose would be served, if the complaint is not quashed against the
applicant herein.
6. Learned APP Ms. M.D. 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. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and more
particularly, considering the affidavit filed by the original complainant on
25.09.2020 and also 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) , this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful
R/CR.MA/89/2021 ORDER
purpose would be served, if the complaint is proceeded any further.
8. In view of the discussions and observations above, the criminal
complaint being being I C.R. No. 44 of 2019 registered with Mahila Police
Station (East), Ahmedabad, dated 12.08.2019 for the offences under
Sections 498(A), 323, 294(b), 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 4 & 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)
(5-a), 5(a) of the Atrocity Act as well as subsequent proceedings is hereby
quashed and set aside qua the present applicant.
Rule is made absolute. Registry is directed to communicate this order
to the concerned Trial Court and Police Station through Email immediately.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Y.N. VYAS
