Allowed

Tejas Rameshchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC5 Apr 2021SCR.A/380/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special criminal application, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad considered whether to quash an FIR involving matrimonial offences under Section 482 CrPC. Finding that the dispute between the parties had been amicably settled and continued proceedings were futile, the Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings against the applicants.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR bearing I-C.R.No.14 of 2019 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the applicants were quashed and set aside.

Tejas Rameshchandra Patel Vs State of Gujarat — Matrimonial and Divorce | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

R/SCR.A/380/2021 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 380 of 2021

¶4

================================================== TEJAS RAMESHCHANDRA PATEL

¶5

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶6

==================================================

¶7

Appearance:

¶8

MR. RAHIL P JAIN(7305) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MS. SONAL M JOSHI(6550) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR. PRATIK V SHAH(7251) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR. RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶9

================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

¶10

Date : 05/04/2021 ORAL ORDER

¶11

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

¶12

Rule . Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

¶13

Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the applicants and respondent No.2 has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

¶14

By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR bearing I- C.R.No.14 of 2019 registered with Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A,

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

R/SCR.A/380/2021 ORDER

¶17

507 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicants.

¶18

Learned advocates appearing for the parties jointly submitted that the dispute between the complainant and the applicants, which is of matrimonial nature, which is amicably settled and is amicably settled and the present complainant s who happens to be wife of the applicant No.1 and who does not want to pursue with the complaint further.

¶19

Learned advocate for the applicants has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicants. Learned advocate Mr.Maulik Soni draws attention of this Court to the affidavit dated 22.03.2021 of Ms. Asmita Tejas Patel, in which, she has submitted that she has no objection if the FIR applicants is quashed and set aside since the dispute is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. It is therefore submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code and allow the application as prayed for.

¶20

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the present application and submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint in question may not be quashed and the present application may be rejected.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

R/SCR.A/380/2021 ORDER

¶23

Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 also relied upon the affidavit filed by Asmita Tejas Patel, Respondent No.2 who is present before the Court, through video conference , and is identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No.2 has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed. Further, the learned advocate for respondent No.2 has also declared that statement of respondent No.2, who is original complainant, has been recorded by the concerned Investigating Officer in respect of present FIR and the contents of the statement of the complainant clearly establish the settlement arrived at between the complainant and the applicants.

¶24

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian 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 applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

R/SCR.A/380/2021 ORDER

¶27

applicants. 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.

¶28

Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing I-C.R.No.14 of 2019 registered with Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A, 507 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the present applicants is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside qua the applicants.

¶29

Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

¶30

Sd/- (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)

¶31

VISHAL MISHRA

¶32

Page 4 of 4

Tejas Rameshchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejas Rameshchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasava Mathurbhai Talshibhai Vs Vasava Nagjibhai Bhayabhai

Imtiazkhan Latifkhan Pathan Vs State of Gujarat

Vasimkhan Jardullakhan Pathan Vs State of Gujarat

Irfan Mustufa Mansuri Vs State of Gujarat

Jayantibhai Nathalal Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Arjunbhai Fatehsinha Solanki Vs State of Gujarat