Allowed

Darpan @ Ajay Jentibhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC7 Feb 2022CR.MA/3587/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat quashed the First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and Section 4, 12, 19 of POCSO against the applicant, considering the marriage between the applicant and the victim, the birth of their child, and the mutual settlement endorsed by both the complainant and prosecutrix.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Complaint and FIR I-C.R. No. 25 of 2018 and Special POCSO Case No. 26 of 2019 were quashed.

Darpan @ Ajay Jentibhai Solanki Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

R/CR.MA/3587/2020 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 3587 of 2020

¶3

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

¶4

DARPAN @ AJAY JENTIBHAI SOLANKI Versus

¶5

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶6

======================================================== Appearance:

¶7

MR PV PATADIYA(5924) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR.HARDIK B SHAH(3751) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS MAITHILI D MEHTA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶8

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

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 07/02/2022

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

Heard learned Advocate Shri P.V. Patadiya on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili D. Mehta on behalf of respondent no.1- State and learned Advocate Shri Hardik Shah on behalf of respondent no.2- original complainant.

¶12

Rule. Learned APP Ms. Mehta waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1- State and learned Advocate Shri Raval waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.2- original complainant.

¶13

By way of this application the applicant praying for quashment of FIR being I- C.R. No. 25 of 2018 registered on 14.09.2018 with Patanvav Police Station, Rajkot Rural for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and offences punishable under Sections 4, 12 and 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( POCSO) Act.

¶14

Learned Advocate Shri Patadiya on behalf of the applicant would submit that the daughter of the complainant and the present applicant were

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

R/CR.MA/3587/2020 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2022

¶17

having a love affair and whereas on account of the same,, both of them had eloped, resulting in filing of the FIR. Learned Advocate would submit that subsequent to the filing of the FIR, the applicant and daughter of the complainant named Hetal had married and whereas the daughter of the complainant had given birth to a baby boy on 26.09.2019. Learned Advocate would further submit that the applicant and the complainant, have also settled the dispute inter se and whereas the complainant has filed an affidavit stating as much. Learned Advocate would further submit that even wife of the applicant i.e. original prosecutrix has also filed an affidavit requesting for quashing of the impugned complaint.

¶18

Learned Advocate Shri Shah on behalf of respondent no.2- original complainant supports the submissions made by learned Advocate Shri Patadiaya. Learned Advocate Shri Shah would further submit that the complainant is present and whereas she may be permitted to join the meeting. Permission is granted. Upon permission being granted and upon joining the meeting the complainant -Bhavnaben w/o Jashmatbhai Sundarbhai Makwana who is identified by learned Advocate Shri Shah confirms the fact of settlement and further confirms that she would not have any objection if the complaint impugned is quashed against the applicant herein.

¶19

Learned APP Ms. Mehta would submit that while the complaint originally alleged serious offences, in view of the later development as submitted by learned Advocates for the parties, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶20

Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, it appears that at the relevant point of time while the applicant had eloped with the daughter of the complainant she was a minor. It further appears that subsequent

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

R/CR.MA/3587/2020 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2022

¶23

thereto both the applicant and daughter of the complainant had got married that the fact of a child having been born from the wedlock has also been pointed out, a birth certificate confirming the same has also been palced on record. It would further be relevant to not that the complainant as well as prosecutrix both have agreed for quashing of the impugned complaint.

¶24

Having regard to the same, in the considered opinion of this Court no fruitful purpose would be served if the complaint impugned is permitted to proceed further insofar as the applicant herein is concerned. This Court relies upon the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 , 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 arrive at the above conclusion.

¶25

Having regard to the above discussions, Criminal Complaint being FIR being I- C.R. No. 25 of 2018 registered on 14.09.2018 with Patanvav Police Station, Rajkot Rural for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Sections 4, 12 and 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) Act and Special POCSO Case No. 26 of 2019 pending before the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge and POCSO Court, Rajkot at Dhoraji arising from the impugned complaint qua the applicant are quashed. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.

¶26

Direct service is permitted.

¶27

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)

¶28

NIRU

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Darpan @ Ajay Jentibhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darpan @ Ajay Jentibhai Solanki 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

Chiragbhai Prahaladbhai Makwana Vs State of Gujarat

Salimbhai Hamidbhai Memon Vs State of Gujarat

Mohabatsinh Pragji Jadeja Vs State of Gujarat

Varsha @ Tinniben Sendhabhai Chaudhari Vs State of Gujarat

Vinodbhai Gokulbhai Kahar Vs State of Gujarat

Mittal Amit Joshi Vs M/S. v and M Trading Thru Special Poa Vijay Gangadas Bajaj