Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/5018/2008 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5018 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
==========================================
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 ?
==========================================
MAHESHKUMAR
GHANSHYAMDAS SADHU
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & ANR
==========================================
Appearance
:
MR MAHENDRA K PATEL for
Applicant:1
MR MUKESH PATEL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent:1
MR SUNIL L MEHTA for Respondent(s) :
2,
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 24/06/2008
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule.
Mr.M.A.Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of
notice of rule and Mr.Sunil Mehta, learned Advocate waives service
of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2-original complainant.
Having
regard to the facts of the case, by consent of the learned Advocates
for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today.
The
facts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No.2 had
lodged a complaint against the petitioner herein alleging commission
of the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code
which came to be registered as a First Information Report vide
Bhachau Police Station I-C.R.No.43 of 2008. The allegation against
the petitioner was to the effect that he had induced the daughter of
the complainant Babitaben, aged about 19 years with a view to marry
her.
By
the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, (‘the Code’), the petitioner has prayed for
quashment of the aforesaid First Information Report.
It
appears that, subsequently, the parties have amicably settled the
dispute between them, pursuant to which, the petitioner herein has
agreed that he would permit his wife to attend any religious and/or
personal ceremony at Bihar in case any such occasion arises. He has
also stated that he would look after his wife and in case of any
disputes between them, inform her parents immediately.
Mr.M.K.Patel,
learned Advocate has tendered an undertaking dated 24th
June, 2008 executed by the petitioner. The same is taken on record.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in view
of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the
petitioner has executed an undertaking pursuant to which the
respondent-original complainant no longer desires to prosecute the
complaint.
Mr.Sunil
Mehta, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the
submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and
has submitted that in view of amicable settlement arrived at between
the parties, more so in view of the undertaking given by the
petitioner, the respondent No.2 does not desire to prosecute the
complaint against the petitioner any further. The complainant
Pushpadevi Jagdishbhai Tiwari is also present before this Court and
she has affirmed what is stated by the learned Advocate appearing on
her behalf. Both the learned Advocates for the parties have jointly
submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the
parties, the complaint in question be quashed in the interest of
justice.
It
is settled legal position as held by the Apex Court as well as this
Court and other High Courts that in case where the parties have
settled the disputes between them, more so in cases arising out of
matrimonial disputes, it is permissible for this Court upon
consideration of facts of each case to quash the complaint even
offences alleged are not compoundable in nature.
In
the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the parties have
settled their disputes between them, pursuant to which the
respondent No.2 is no longer desires to prosecute the complaint.
Even otherwise, looking to the facts of the present case, the
daughter of the complainant is 19 years of age. She appears to have
voluntarily gone with the petitioner No.1, hence, no offence as
alleged can be stated to have been made out against the petitioner.
In the circumstances, this is a fit case for exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Code to prevent the abuse of the process of
Court.
For the foregoing
reasons, application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The First
Information Report registered vide Bhachau Police Station
I-C.R.No.43 of 2008 is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute.
(HARSHA
DEVANI, J.)
Amit/-
Top