Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/468/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 468 of 2011
=========================================
DARSHAN
VINODRAY PARIKH & 3 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
TAPAN J TRIVEDI for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 4.
MR LR POOJARI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 24/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Mr.L.R.Poojari, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1.
2. The
present application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
has been filed for quashing of complaint / FIR registered as
C.R.No.I-334 of 2009 before Ghatlodia Police Station, Ahmedabad for
the offences punishable under Sections 498(A),114 of Indian Penal
Code and under section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The
learned advocates for the applicants submitted that the matter is
settled between the parties and therefore, complaint may be quashed.
It is also submitted that as per settlement terms, applicant no.1
paid Rs.10 lacs towards permanent alimony to respondent no.2. Decree
of divorce has also been passed by the Competent Court under section
13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4. Respondent
no.2 – complainant is personally present in the Court. She has
stated that she has received Rs.10 lacs towards permanent alimony and
it is also submitted that applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 have
filed divorce petition before the Family Court, Rajkot and Family
Court, Rajkot has also passed decree of divorce. Respective parties
have jointly submitted that as the matter is settled between the
parties, the complaint may be quashed.
5. It
is clear that the parties have settled the matter by arriving at a
compromise and a consent terms settlement is also placed on record.
Reliance is placed on another decision of the Apex Court reported in
AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1386 in
the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana
wherein complaint for the offence under Sec.498-A has been
quashed by using the inherent power of the Court under Sec.482 of
Cr.P.C. It has been held by the Apex Court in paras 14 and 15 of the
said judgment as under:
“14.
There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A
containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the
torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband.
Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his
relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her
relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical
view would be counter productive and would act against interests of
women and against the object for which this provision was added.
There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to
quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women
from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of
Indian Penal Code.
15.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in
exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR
or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the
powers under Section 482 of the Code.”
6. Applying
the above ratio to the facts of the present case, since the matter
has been settled between the parties, I am of the opinion that no
useful purpose would be served by permitting the criminal proceedings
pending against the petitioners to continue as it would be abuse of
process of the court. Hence, the complaint in question is required to
be quashed.
7. In
the result, present application is allowed. The complaint / FIR
being C.R.No.I-334 of 2009 registered with Ghatlodiya Police Station,
Ahmedabad and the proceedings therein are required to be quashed and
are accordingly quashed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.
[M.D.Shah,
J.]
satish
Top