Gujarat High Court
Mehulkumar Mansukhlal Joshi vs State Of Gujarat on 28 January, 2021
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
R/SCR.A/1515/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1515 of 2015
============================================
MEHULKUMAR MANSUKHLAL JOSHI & 3 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
============================================
Appearance:
MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI(1077) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR JAYESH A KOTECHA(5293) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS SHRUTI PATHAK ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 28/01/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Shri Shakeel A. Qureshi for the applicants,
learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak for the respondent No.1 - State and learned
Advocate Shri Jayesh A. Kotecha for the respondent No.2.
2. Rule. Learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak waives service of Rule for the
respondent No.1 - State and learned Advocate Shri Kotecha waives service
of Rule for the respondent No.2
3. By way of present application, the applicant prays for quashing of the
criminal complaint being I C.R. No. 14 of 2015 registered with Mahila
Police Station, Dist. Junagadh dated 27.02.2015 for the offences under
Sections 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
R/SCR.A/1515/2015 ORDER
4. Learned Advocate Shri Qureshi submits that since it is essentially the
dispute between the husband and wife and during the pendency of the
present application, the parties have resolved dispute inter se and now, the
complainant is residing with her husband - applicant No.1 herein, therefore,
no fruitful purpose would be served, if the complaint is permitted to
continue to proceed any further against the applicants herein.
5. Learned Advocate Shri Kotecha for the complainant submits that the
complainant has already filed an affidavit to this regard. He submits that the
complainant - Manishaben Mahulkumar Joshi is present and the
complainant may be permitted to join the meeting. Permission is granted.
Learned Advocate Shri Kotecha has identified the complainant. The
complainant has joined the meeting and upon inquiry by this Court, she
confirms the fact of settlement and she further confirms that she would not
have any objection, if the complaint is quashed.
6. Learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak strongly opposed the present
application and she further submits that the offences committed by the
applicant 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
18.01.2021 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
R/SCR.A/1515/2015 ORDER
complaint is proceeded any further.
8. In view of the discussions and observations above, the criminal
complaint being I C.R. No. 14 of 2015 registered with Mahila Police Station,
Dist. Junagadh dated 27.02.2015 for the offences under Sections 498(A) and
114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act is hereby quashed and set aside qua the present applicants.
Rule is made absolute. Registry is directed to communicate this order
to the concerned Police Station through Email immediately.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Y.N. VYAS
