BRIJESH KANTILAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2013-5-125
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on May 08,2013

Brijesh Kantilal Patel Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)HEARD Mr.Pinakin M. Raval, learned advocate for the petitionersoriginal accused, Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1State and Ms.Harshal N. Pandya, learned advocate for respondent No.2 first informant.
(2.)BY way of the present petition, the petitionersoriginal accused, who are husband, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw respectively of respondent No.2first informant, have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No.I65 of 2010 registered at Mahila Police Station, Vadodara City for the offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as all consequential proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R.
Mr.Pinakin M. Raval, learned advocate for the petitionersoriginal accused, at the outset, states that petitioner No.1, who stays at Zambia, East Africa, and the first informant i.e. respondent No.2 have amicably resolved the dispute and they are residing as husbandwife. It is submitted that in view of the fact that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have re united as husbandwife and are residing together, any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. shall amount to harassment to the petitioners and that would adversely affect the personal life of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, who has also migrated to Zambia, East Africa, and stays with petitioner No.1. Relying upon the affidavit dated 10.01.2013 filed in these proceedings as well as affidavit dated 24.01.2013, it is submitted that the allegations leveled in the impugned F.I.R. were made because of some misunderstanding and the basic dispute was a matrimonial dispute, which has been resolved.

(3.)LEARNED advocate for the petitioners has further submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties trial would be futile and the same would also amount to abuse of process of law and court. Reliance is also placed upon the decisions rendered in the cases of Nikhil Merchant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2009(1) GLH 31 as well as in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., 2009(1) GLH 190, and, therefore, it is submitted that in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and may quash the impugned F.I.R. as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.