Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/8168/2006 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8168 of 2006
=========================================================
MAYUR
KANTIBHAI PARMAR - Petitioner
Versus
THE
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondents
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HEMANT B RAVAL for
Petitioner : 1,
MR MA PATEL ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent
: 1,
MR CHIRAG M PAWAR for Respondent :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 06/10/2006
ORAL
ORDER
Shri
Chirag Pawar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has
tendered affidavit filed on behalf of original complainant urging
this Court that the complaint is filed bonafide and petition,
therefore, deserves to be rejected.
Rule.
Mr. Patel, learned Addl.P.P. waives service of Rule on behalf of
respondent No. 1 ? State and Mr. Chirag Pawar, learned counsel
waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2. The Rule is
fixed forthwith with the consent of the parties.
The
petitioner ? original accused has preferred this application under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of
complaint being FIR No. I.CR. 229 of 2006 registered with Shaher
Kotda Police Station, Ahmedabad on 23rd July, 2006 for
commission of offences under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian
Penal Code against the petitioner that the complainant’s daughter
named Arpita, aged 21 years was deceived and induced to elope with
accused ? present petitioner.
Learned
counsel for the petitioner Shri Raval has placed on record the
affidavit filed by the daughter of the complainant ? Arpita
stating that she has married the accused and they are leading happy
married life and therefore, the complaint may be quashed. This
affidavit was tendered on 22.9.2006. Shri Pawar, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No. 2 has sought time to ascertain
appropriate instructions from his client. Today, as stated herein
above, he has tendered the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent
No. 2 resiting the application and claiming that the complaint was
filed bonafide.
In
view of the affidavit filed by the wife and in view of the averments
made in the complaint, it becomes amply clear that the complainant
has filed the complaint only for obtaining his desired result. The
daughter of the complainant was major and she had all the right to
choose her life partner. The complaint, therefore, cannot be said to
have been filed bonafide and therefore, same deserves to be quashed
under this proceedings. Continuation of such complaint amount to
rather miscarriage of justice. This Court in case of NITINBHAI
MATHURDAS THAKKAR & ORS Vs. STAT OF GUJARAT & ANR,
reported in 2005 (3) GLR pg. 2377 has quashed the compliant when
there was compromise. Though in view of the affidavit filed by the
complainant, it cannot be said that the issue is compromised,
however, looking to the affidavit filed by the daughter of the
complainant and the stand taken by the complainant in the affidavit,
which go to show that even he is not disputing that his daughter has
willingly leading happy married life with the accused. The
complainant had stated that in future, the accused may create
problem to his daughter and therefore, the complaint is filed
bonafide, is of no avail to him, in fact the basic requirement of
meeting of ingredients to section invoked are conspicuously absent
in the complaint and therefore, looking to the affidavit of daughter
of complainant, which has remained uncontroverted, it can be said
that continuation of complaint would be rather miscarriage of
justice. The Apex Court decision in case of STATE OF
KARNATAKA Vs. L. MUNISWAMY & ORS, in which
Honourable Court in para no.7 has observed as under:-
?S
7….
In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is
entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process
of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding
ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers,
both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary
public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.
?S
In
view of this, this Court is inclined to quash the complaint and
accordingly, the complaint being FIR No. 229 of 2006 registered with
Shaherkotda Police Station is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute.
Direct service permitted.
[
S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ]
pallav
Top