Gujarat High Court
Gopalbhai Haribhai Kakadiya vs State Of Gujarat on 28 October, 2021
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
R/CR.MA/19482/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19482 of 2021
=============================================
GOPALBHAI HARIBHAI KAKADIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MR P B KHANDHERIA(5228) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS.KRINA CALLA APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 28/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
[1] Mr.Pawan Barot, learned advocate states that he
has instructions to appear for and on behalf of respondent
No.2. He is permitted to file his Vakaltnama.
[2] Considering the issues involved in the present
application and with consent of the learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the
fact that the dispute amongst the applicant and respondent
No.2 has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up
for final disposal forthwith.
[3] Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well
as learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive
service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
[4] By way of this application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Code"), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting
aside F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.II-3106 of 2013 registered with
R/CR.MA/19482/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021
Jetpur Police Station, Dist. Rajkot and to quash all other
consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua
the applicant.
[5] Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
[6] Both the learned advocates would submit that
during the pendency of present application, the matter is
amicably settled amongst the parties and therefore, any
further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the
impugned FIR would create hardship to the parties and further
continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of
process of law.
[7] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State has opposed the present application and submitted
that considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint
in question may not be quashed and the present application
may be rejected. In support of her contention, she relied upon
the judgment in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Laxminarayan reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688.
[8] Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has placed
on record the settlement Affidavit duly sworn by the original
complainant as well as injured persons. The respondent No. 2
as well as injured person have filed affidavi t stating inter-alia
the fact that the matter is amicably settled with the applicant.
The Respondent No.2 is present in person before the Court
and is identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2 and
also admits the contents of the Affidavit. On inquiry made by
the Court, the respondent No.2 has declared before this Court
that the dispute between the applicant(s) and respondent No.2
R/CR.MA/19482/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021
is resolved and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed.
It is therefore submitted that the present application may be
allowed.
[9] Having heard the learned advocates for the parties
and considering the family disputes and facts of settlement
and law laid down by the Apex Court [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 considered view that further continuation of
the criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR would
nothing but unnecessary harassment to the parties and trial
thereon would be futile and further continuation of the
proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. Thus, to
secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be
quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 482 of the Code.
[10] Resultantly, this application is allowed and the
impugned FIR bearing C.R.No.II-3106 of 2013 registered with
Jetpur Police Station, Dist. Rajkot filed against present
applicant is hereby quashed and set aside and all other
proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed
and set aside qua the applicant. Accordingly, Rule is made
absolute. Direct service permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
Manoj
