Vijay S/O Dineshbhai Agrawal vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 2153 Guj

     R/CR.MA/20108/2020                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2022



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20108 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
===================================================

1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the No
       judgment ?

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                           No

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment No
       ?

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the No
       interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
       thereunder ?

===================================================
                    VIJAY S/O DINESHBHAI AGRAWAL
                                   Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
===================================================
Appearance:
MR HITESH L GUPTA(3937) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
ADITYA D DAVDA(8354) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR BJ TRIVEDI(921) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JT TRIVEDI(931) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS JIGNASA B TRIVEDI(3090) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MAITHILI D MEHTA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
===================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
                       Date : 23/02/2022

                                   ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hitesh Gupta on behalf of the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili D. Mehta on behalf of respondent no.1- State and learned Advocate Mr. Aditya Davda on behalf of respondent no.2- original complainant.

2. By way of this petition the petitioner prays for quashment of FIR being C.R. No. I- 11196004201225 of 2020 registered with Gotri Police

R/CR.MA/20108/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2022

Station, District: Vadodara City on 11.10.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 376(2)(N) and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code and further consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Gupta on behalf of the petitioner would submit that while the petitioner been preferred seeking quashment of the FIR on its merits, thereafter subsequently the parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent no.2- original complainant have settled the matter inter se and whereas the said respondent no.2 has consented for quashing of the impugned FIR.

4. Having regard to the same learned Advocate request that FIR may be quashed by this Court.

5. Submissions of learned Advocate Mr. Gupta for the petitioner have been supported by learned Advocate Mr. Davda on behalf of the original complainant.

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Davda would submit that while the respondent no. 2 has filed an affidavit confirming the fact of settlement learned Advocate would further submit that respondent no. 2 had been present before this Court on 10.02.2022 and whereas on such date the complainant having confirmed the fact of settlement and having further confirmed that she would not have any objection if the complaint impugned is quashed by this Court, such facts having been noted in order dated 10.02.2022.

7. Learned Advocate would therefore request that the impugned complaint may be quashed.

8 Learned APP Ms. Mehta submits that the Investigating Officer was required to verify the aspect of settlement and whereas the Investigating Officer has taken statement of the complainant and whereas the

R/CR.MA/20108/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2022

complainant has confirmed the fact of settlement and the complainant further confirms that the settlement is out of her own volition and she would not have any objection if the complaint impugned is quashed. Learned APP would further submit that while allegations in the complaint are prima facie serious yet looking to the fact of settlement between the parties, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

9. Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocates for the parties, more particularly considering the fact of settlement between the parties and the affidavit as well as oral statement of the complainant, in the considered opinion of this Court no fruitful purpose would be served if the impugned compliant and any further proceedings arising therefrom are permitted to proceed any further. This Court relies upon the observations of the Hon'ble 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, 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) to arrive at the above conclusion.

10. Having regard to the above discussions, Criminal Complaint being FIR being C.R. No. I- 11196004201225 of 2020 registered with Gotri Police Station, District: Vadodara City on 11.10.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 376(2)(N) and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code and further consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.

Direct service is permitted.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) NIRU