Vikrambhai Amratbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 924 Guj

R/CR.MA/310/2021                              ORDER



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 310 of 2021

================================================================
                   VIKRAMBHAI AMRATBHAI PARMAR
                               Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR V B MALIK(5071) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS.MOXA THAKKAR, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                         Date : 20/01/2021
                           ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Shri V.B. Malik for the applicant and learned APP Ms.M.K.Thakkar for the respondent - State.

2. Learned Advocate Shri V.B.Malik for the applicant submits that the learned Advocate Shri Imran Pathan has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant - respondent no.2 and he may be permitted to join the meeting. Permission is granted. Learned Advocate Shri Pathan is permitted to file his vakalatnama on behalf of the original complainant.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Shri Pathan waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the original complainant - respondent no.2 and learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent

- State.

4. By way of this application, the applicant is praying for quashing of the criminal complaint being C.R. No.11191012201364 of 2020 registered with Danilimda Police Station, District:-

R/CR.MA/310/2021 ORDER

Ahmedabad City on 21.11.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11(6) and 12 of the POCSO Act.

5. Learned Advocate Shri V.B. Malik for the applicant submits that the matter is settled between the parties. It is submitted by the learned Advocate Shri Malik on behalf of the applicant that the applicant and victim are having love affair and it is on account of some misunderstanding, the impugned complaint had been filed by the respondent no.2 - original complainant. He further submits that after filing of the complaint due to intervention of the community members, settlement has been arrived at between the parties and therefore, he submits that no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the impugned criminal complaint to continue further and therefore, he submits that the same may be quashed by this Court.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Imran Pathan for the respondent no.2 - original complainant upon joining the meeting has submitted that the original complainant - respondent no.2 - Sanjuben Dineshbhai Parmar is present in his office and learned Advocate Shri Pathan identifies the said complainant. Complainant upon inquiry by this Court has confirmed the facts of the matter is settled between the parties. Shri Pathan further submits that original complainant has filed an affidavit dated 25.12.2020 which is at page no.26 at Annexure C of the present application and he submits that considering the affidavit as well as statement of the original complainant, the original complainant would have no objection, if the impugned complaint is quashed.

7. Learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the respondent - State opposed the quashing of the complaint and submits that since serious allegations levelled against the applicant, no indulgence may

R/CR.MA/310/2021 ORDER

be shown to the present applicant and the present application may be rejected.

8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and more particularly, considering the affidavit filed by the original complainant 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 ) and considering the facts of the dispute which is essentially private in nature, it becomes clear that no fruitful purpose would be served, if the complaint is not quashed since the investigation and the consequential trial would be an exercise in futility as the complainant herself clarifies and confirms that the she has settled the issue with the applicant herein.

9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Criminal Complaint being C.R. No.11191012201364 of 2020 registered with Danilimda Police Station, District:- Ahmedabad City filed against the applicant is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Application is disposed of.

10. Authority - Sabarmati Central Jail Ahmedabad is directed to release the applicant herein Vikrambhai Amratbhai Parmar forthwith.

11. Direct service is permitted through electronic mode.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) VARSHA DESAI