Gujarat High Court
Maheshbhai Hemantbhai Manatar (Barot) vs State Of Gujarat on 1 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/428/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 428 of
2022
============================================
MAHESHBHAI HEMANTBHAI MANATAR (BAROT)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
MR AMRISH S BAROT(3551) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PAWAN A BAROT(6455) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SWETA P BAROT(10181) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. SHIVANGI M RANA(7053) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 01/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on
behalf of the respective respondents.
2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it
is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both the sides that
the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this
matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
3. By way of this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C"), the petitioner has prayed to
quash and set aside the order and judgment dated 27.06.2019 in
Criminal Misc. Application No.103 of 2019, passed by learned Family
Court, Vadodara, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for maintenance filed
by the respondent no.2, which was challenged by the petitioner herein.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/428/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
4. Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that
during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the
dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original
complainant has also filed an Affidavit dated 01.08.2025 which is taken
on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically
stated that the dispute with the petitioner has been resolved amicably
and that he has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed
and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them. The
complainant is present in-person and identified by her learned
Advocate. The complainant has admitted the factum of settlement.
5. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the
principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian Singh
Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, (ii)
Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4
SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj
Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v)
Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in
2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), considering the facts that during the
pendency of the present petition both have amicably settled the
dispute and mutually decided to obtain the divorce and separated by
executing notarized Settlement Deed dated 12.07.2025 and as the
dispute is private in nature and respondent no.2 appeared and have no
objection, in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of
criminal proceedings against the petitioner would cause unnecessary
harassment to the petitioner. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant
to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a
futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be
appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceeding
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/428/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
6. In the result, the application is allowed. The order dated
27.06.2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 103 of 2019,
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.3, Vadodara, is
hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner herein. Rule is made
absolute. Direct service is permitted. If the petitioner is in jail, the jail
authority concerned is directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if
not required in connection with any other case.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT
