Gujarat High CourtYogesh Kishorilal Sharma vs State Of Gujarat on 5 April, 2018Author:A.J.DesaiBench:A.J.DesaiR/CR.MA/3413/2018                                         ORDER




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 3413 of 2018

================================================================
                      YOGESH KISHORILAL SHARMA
                                Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
GAURAV P GOYAL(8861) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK H DAVE(6295) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED THROU. CONCERNED POLICE STATION for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
MR. RUTVIJ OZA, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

                              Date : 05/04/2018

                               ORAL ORDER1.   Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court , the original
     complainant Ms. Deepa Khemchand Jhangid is present
     before this Court. She has been identified by the
     Investigating         Officer      viz.       D.B.Rathod,   Police   Sub
     Inspector, Panigate Police Station, Vadodara City.2.   She has also produced the xerox copy of the Aadhar
     Card. She has also stated that she had filed impugned
     FIR against the present petitioner. She has further
     stated that she is unable to stay with the present
     accused and wants to go at her matrimonial home. At
     present, she is residing in Himachal Pradesh. She has
     further requested not to proceed further with the FIR,
     which was lodged as C.R.NO. I-8/2018 with Panigate
     Police Station, Vadodara City, on 11.01.2018.Page 1 of 5R/CR.MA/3413/2018                            ORDER3.   She has further stated that she has no objection, if the
     FIR is quashed. This Court has explained her about the
     consequences of the quashment of the impugned FIR
     and she has understood as she has studied upto B.B.A.4.   Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives
     service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondent.
     Respondent no. 2, who is present in the Court wavies
     service of Rule.5.   Considering the issue involved in the present application
     and with consent of the respondent no. 2, namely, Ms.
     Deepa Khemchand Jhangid who is present before this
     Court this application is taken up for final disposal
     forthwith.6.   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-8/2018 registered
     with Panigate Police Station, Vadodara City for the
     commission of offence punishable underSection 323,504,498(A),506(2)of the Indian Penal Code as well as
     all other consequential proceedings arising out of the
     aforesaid FIR qua the applicant.7.   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 thePage 2 of 5R/CR.MA/3413/2018                                 ORDER



     impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings arising
     therefrom would create hardship to the applicant. It is
     submitted that respondent No.2 has declared before this
     Court that the dispute between the applicant and
     respondent No.2 is resolved and the complainant is
     not inclined to proceed further with the impugned
     FIR. Further, divorce deed dated 11.01.2018 is also
     executed between the petitioner and respondent no. 2
     and the same is also produced before this Court. 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 underSection 482of the Code and allow the application as
     prayed for.8.   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.9.   Respondent No.2 has reiterated the contentions raised
     by the learned advocate for the applicant. Respondent
     No.2 is present in person before the Court and is
     identified by the Investigating Officer. 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 and she is not inclined to
     proceed        further   with      the   impugned    FIR    andPage 3 of 5R/CR.MA/3413/2018                                         ORDER



      therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is
      therefore submitted that the present application may be
      allowed.10.   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 underSection 482of the Code.11.   Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned
      FIR    bearing         C.R.NO.         I-8/2018     registered     with
      Panigate Police Station, Vadodara City filed against
      the present applicant is hereby quashed and set aside.Page 4 of 5R/CR.MA/3413/2018                          ORDER



       Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the
       aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside qua the
       applicant.12.    Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.(A.J.DESAI, J)
VISHAL MISHRAPage 5 of 5