Quashed

Punambhai Kantibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC17 Feb 2022CR.MA/10384/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom after finding that the matrimonial dispute had been amicably settled between the parties. The court deemed further legal proceedings to be an exercise in futility.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR being C.R.I No. 4 of 2018 and all proceedings arising therefrom were quashed with liberty for direct service.

Punambhai Kantibhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat — Matrimonial and Divorce | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

R/CR.MA/10384/2018 ORDER DATED: 17/02/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10384 of 2018

¶4

With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR FIXING DATE OF HEARING) NO. 1 of 2022

¶5

In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10384 of 2018

¶6

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

¶7

PUNAMBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL & 6 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR CHINTAN S POPAT(5004) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 MR KRISHNAN GHAVARIA for MR MURALI N DEVNANI(1863) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 MR DIPAK H SINDHI(5710) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS MD MEHTA, ASSITANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

¶13

Date : 17/02/2022

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Krishnan Ghavaria on behalf of the

¶16

learned Advocate Mr. Murali N. Devanani for the petitioners and learned APP Ms. M. D. Mehta for the respondent-State, learned Advocate Mr. Dipak H. Sindhi for respondent no. 2.

¶17

Learned Advocate Mr. Ghavaria would submit that while the

¶18

present petition had been preferred praying for quashing of FIR being C. R. I No. 4 of 2018 registered with the Mahila Police Station, Kheda at Nadiad on 27.04.2018 for offences punishable under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section-4 of the Dowry

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

R/CR.MA/10384/2018 ORDER DATED: 17/02/2022

¶21

Prohibition Act, 1961, on its merits later on pending the present petition, the parties have amicably settled the dispute and whereas he would submit that on ground of settlement, more particularly, since no fruitful purpose would be served, the impugned complaint and further proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed by this Court.

¶22

Submissions of learned Advocate Mr. Ghavaria have been supported by learned Advocate Mr. Sindhi who would submit that pursuant to filing of this petition due to intervention of family members, the parties have settled the dispute inter se. Learned Advocate Mr. Sindhi would submit that the complainant has also filed an affidavit stating as much and whereas the complainant has also stated her consent for quashment of the impugned FIR. Learned Advocate Mr. Sindhi would submit that the complainant is present in his office and may be permitted to join the meeting. Upon permission being granted, the complainant who is identified by the learned Advocate Mr. Sindhi, on joining the meeting would submit that matter is settled between the parties and she would not have any objection if the complaint is quashed.

¶23

Learned APP Ms. Mehta would submit that considering the fact that the dispute is matrimonial in nature, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

R/CR.MA/10384/2018 ORDER DATED: 17/02/2022

¶26

Heard learned Advocates for parties and considering the fact that the dispute is private in nature, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served if the complaint FIR and further proceedings arising therefrom are permitted to proceed further, more particularly, in the considered opinion of this Court the same would be noting but an exercise in futility.

¶27

This Court relies on observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶28

in 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 , 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) to come to such a conclusion.

¶29

Having regard to the observations as above, impugned FIR being C. R. I No. 4 of 2018 registered with the Mahila Police Station, Kheda at Nadiad on 27.04.2018 for offences punishable under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section-4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and any proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. Direct service is permitted. In view of the order passed in the main matter the application for fixing date i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

R/CR.MA/10384/2018 ORDER DATED: 17/02/2022

¶32

Application No. 1 of 2022 stands disposed of as having become

¶33

infructuous.

¶34

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)

¶35

Mrs. J. J. Kedia