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.