The Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR alleging kidnapping, abduction and POCSO offences after finding that the dispute between the accused and the complainant family was amicably settled and the victim girl had married the accused.
Impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R/CR.MA/438/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 438 of 2021
==========================================================
RAMUBHAI BHIKHABHAI SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
DEV D PATEL(8264) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ANTRIX N KAPADIYA(10699) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR DHARM K RAVAL(10689) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 MR RONAK RAVAL, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 30/03/2021 ORAL ORDER
Page 1 of 6
R/CR.MA/438/2021 ORDER
Code”), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR bearing CR No.I-29 of 2016 registered with Khambhat City Police Station, District Anand for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 18 of the POCSO Act, 2012 as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicant.
Page 2 of 6
R/CR.MA/438/2021 ORDER
are present before the Court, through video conference, and are identified by their respective learned advocates. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 have declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicant and respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society and, therefore, now the grievance between them stands redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed.
8. On 22/03/2021, following order was passed:
“Learned advocate Mr. Antrix N Kapadiya appeared today and has submitted that he represents respondent No. 2, who happens to be the father of victim girl i.e. the original complainant.
Learned advocate Mr. Kapadiya has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by Girishbhai Dalpatbhai Solanki and more particularly, paragraphs No. 4 and 5 of the affidavit dated 19.03.2021, wherein, the father of victim girl has stated that the petitioner and respondent No.3-victim girl have married on 20.04.2018 and they are living a happy married life and the father of the victim girl i.e. the original complainant does not have objection, if the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR is quashed. Learned advocate Mr. Dharam K Raval, represents the victim girl, has also filed one affidavit of the victim girl, wherein she has categorically submitted that she has married the petitioner on 20.04.2018 at Vadodara, for which a valid marriage certificate has also been issued by the Registrar. She has also stated that no such incident has taken place as alleged in the FIR filed by the father of the victim. Therefore, it would be interest of justice if the said FIR is quashed and set aside.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Thakor has submitted that the
Page 3 of 6
R/CR.MA/438/2021 ORDER
incident is of year 2016 and thereafter the present petitioner could not be traced even if the warrant under Section 70 of Cr.P.C is issued and hence she has submitted that even if the issue is settled between the parties, she strongly objected with regard to the settlement, which is arrived at between them and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
In view of the aforesaid two affidavits, respondents No. 2 and 3 may approach the concerned Investigating Officer and get their respective statements recorded in respect of issue being settled between the parties and to the effect that none of them now wants to pursue with the FIR.
On next date of hearing, both the learned advocates for the respective parties are also directed to ensure that the victim girl as well as the complainant remain present before this Court online to confirm that actually the compromise has taken place and they do not have any objection if the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR is quashed.
Stand over to 30.03.2021.”
Page 4 of 6
R/CR.MA/438/2021 ORDER
not, both the complainant as well as the victim have stated that the victim has married the present applicant in the year 2018 and they do not have any objection if the FIR is quashed which is registered against the present applicant as the victim is living happily after getting married with the present applicant.
Page 5 of 6
R/CR.MA/438/2021 ORDER
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. , reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors. , reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) , it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
ila
Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR for offences under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 18 POCSO Act, 2012 should be quashed in view of the settlement between parties and marriage of the victim.
Whether mere settlement of the dispute suffices to quash proceedings falling under POCSO Act and offences against women/childhood where complicity of complainant exists.
Whether the proceedings amounting to abuse of process of law warrant quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.Referred¶45
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶45
(2008) 4 SCC 582 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.Referred¶45
2009 (1) GLH 31
Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors.Referred¶45
2009 (1) GLH 190
Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.Referred¶45
2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
RAMUBHAI BHIKHABHAI SOLANKI
STATE OF GUJARAT
Shri Girishbhai Dalpatbhai Solanki
victim girl
NIRZAR S DESAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
