Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/603/2011 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 603 of 2011
With
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1085 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
NARESHKUMAR
BHAGWANJI PARMAR - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RAJKUMAR CHAUMAL for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR LR PUJARI, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
UNSERVED-REFUSED (R) for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 01/08/2011
COMMON
ORAL JUDGMENT
Both
these applications under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
have been filed for quashing of complaint registered as C.R.No.I-127
of 2010 before Deesa Rural Police Station for the offences
punishable under Secs.363, 366, 506(2) and 114 of IPC against the
applicants in pursuance of complaint filed by the respondent
No.2-complainant.
Heard
learned advocate, Mr.Rajkumar Chaumal for the applicants and
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent
No.1-State.
It
is submitted by learned advocate, Mr.Chaumal for the applicants that
the applicant of Spl.Cri.Appln.No.603 of 2011 i.e. original accused
No.1 and victim married with each other. Copy of the marriage
certificate is placed on record. It is further submitted that at the
time of lodging of complaint, victim was minor, however,
subsequently on her attaining the age of majority, marriage took
place with the applicant-original accused No.1 and now they are
staying as wife and husband. In view of the fact that the victim and
applicant-Nareshkumar Bhagwanji Parmar have got married at their
will, no purpose would be served if criminal complaint filed against
the applicants are allowed to continue. It is therefore requested
that complaint may be quashed.
Victim
girl is present before this Court. This Court has ascertained the
wish of the victim girl in chamber in presence of learned advocates
for the respective parties as well as the learned APP when she has
stated in no uncertain terms that applicant-Nareshkumar Bhagwanji
Parmar is her husband and at present they are staying as wife and
husband. It is also stated by her that she left her parents on her
own free will. She has also stated that as community of her husband
is different from her community, her parents are against this
marriage and hence, the present complaint has been filed.
In
view of above statement made by the victim girl to the effect that
she left her parents and on attaining the age of majority got
married with the applicant-Nareshkumar Bhagwanji Parmar on her own
volition and at present they are staying as wife and husband under
one roof, I am of the opinion that continuance of the criminal
complaint filed against the applicants would be an exercise in
futility.
Reliance
is placed on a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2003
SUPREME COURT 1386 in
the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana
wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that
High Court can exercise inherent power for quashing of criminal
proceedings 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.”
Applying
the above ratio to the facts of the present case, I am of the
opinion that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the
criminal complaint filed against the applicants to continue. Hence,
the complaint in question is required to be quashed.
In
view of the above, complaint registered as C.R.No.I-127 of 2010
before Deesa Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under
Secs.363, 366, 506(2) and 114 of IPC against the applicants is
quashed. Both these Special Cri.Applications are accordingly
allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(M.D.SHAH,J.)
radhan
Top