Gujarat High CourtKishorbhai Laljibhai Patel (Padariya) ... vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 17 July, 2017Author:A.J.DesaiBench:A.J.DesaiR/CR.MA/34261/2016                                                ORDER



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
              CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                                 FIR/ORDER) NO. 34261 of 2016
         ===========================================================
              KISHORBHAI LALJIBHAI PATEL (PADARIYA) & 1....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
         ================================================================
         Appearance:
         MR MANOJ SHRIMALI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
         MR. L.B. DABHI, ADD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ================================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

                                       Date : 17/07/2017
                                        ORAL ORDER1.    Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
         parties. Haribhai Chanabhai Pargi, complainant is present in the
         Court and is identified by Mr. Manoj Shrimali, Learned advocate
         appearing for the applicant. His Affidavit is placed on record.2.    Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as
         learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of
         Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.3.    Considering the issue 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.4.    By way of this application underSection 482of the Code of
         Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"),
         the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR
         bearing C.R.No.I-128 of 2016 registered with Jetpur City PolicePage 1 of 4HC-NIC                                   Page 1 of 4      Created On Tue Jul 18 01:32:57 IST 2017
                  R/CR.MA/34261/2016                                                    ORDER



         Station, Rajkot for the commission of offence punishable underSections 454,380,506(2)504and114of the Indian Penal Code
         andSection 3(1)(r)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
         (Prevention    of    Atrocities)       Act,      1989,     as     well     as     all    other
         consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the
         applicant.5.    Learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court
         through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At
         the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved
         the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings
         pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings
         arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicant. It is
         submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these
         proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the
         applicant and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of
         trusted persons of the society. It is further submitted that in view
         of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and
         any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse
         of process of law. It is therefore submitted that this Court may
         exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the
         Code and allow the application as prayed for.6.    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.7.    Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the
         contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant. The
         learned advocate for respondent No.2 also relied upon the affidavit
         filed by respondent No.2 - Haribhai Chanabhai Parghi datedPage 2 of 4HC-NIC                                      Page 2 of 4       Created On Tue Jul 18 01:32:57 IST 2017
                  R/CR.MA/34261/2016                                             ORDER



         17.7.2017. Respondent No.2 is present in person before the Court
         and is identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2. On
         inquiry made by the Court, respondent No.2 has declared before
         this Court that the dispute between the applicant and respondent
         No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the
         society and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is
         therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed.8.   Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
         respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising
         out of the present application as well as taking into consideration
         the decisions rendered in the cases ofGian 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), it
         appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in
         relation to the impugned FIR against the applicant would be
         unnecessary harassment to the applicant. It appears that the trial
         would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings
         pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of
         law and hence, 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.9.   Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR
         bearing C.R.No.I-128 of 2016 registered with Jetpur City Police
         Station, Rajkot filed against the present applicant is hereby
         quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising
         out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside qua the
         applicant. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute.Page 3 of 4HC-NIC                                Page 3 of 4      Created On Tue Jul 18 01:32:57 IST 2017
                      R/CR.MA/34261/2016                                             ORDER



                   Direct service is permitted.

                                                                                 (A.J.DESAI, J.)
         PALLAVIPage 4 of 4HC-NIC                                    Page 4 of 4      Created On Tue Jul 18 01:32:57 IST 2017