Allowed

Varsha @ Tinniben Sendhabhai Chaudhari v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC7 Feb 2022CR.MA/5351/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Gujarat quashed an FIR against four applicants charged under IPC and POCSO, noting the complainant and prosecutrix agreed to quash the case after allegations were refuted and a dispute was resolved. Relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding settlement in criminal trials involving serious offences.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Complaint FIR No. C.R. No. I- 02 of 2018 and consequential proceedings qua the applicants (original accused no. 3 to 6) were quashed.

Varsha @ Tinniben Sendhabhai Chaudhari Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

R/CR.MA/5351/2018 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5351 of 2018

¶4

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

¶5

VARSHA @ TINNIBEN SENDHABHAI CHAUDHARI & 3 other(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR DK CHAUDHARY FOR MR DIPAL R RAVAIYA(6532) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4

¶11

DUSHYANT M BHATT(7266) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS MAITHILI D MEHTA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶12

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

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

¶14

Date : 07/02/2022

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

Heard learned Advocate Shri D.K Chaudhary for learned Advocate Shri Dipal Ravaiya on behalf of the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili D. Mehta on behalf of respondent no.1- State and learned Advocate Shri Dushyant Bhatt on behalf of respondent no.2original complainant.

¶17

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

¶18

By way of this application the applicantS had prayed for quashing of FIR being C.R. No. I- 02 of 2018 registered on 26.01.2018 with Unava Police Station, Mahesana for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

R/CR.MA/5351/2018 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2022

¶21

Learned Advocate Shri Chaudhary on behalf of the applicants would submit that at the relevant point of time when the applicants who have been arraigned as accused no. 3 to 6 in the FIR had approached this Court by way of this application learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 12.03. 2018 had been pleased to protect the applicants by directing no coercive steps to be taken against the applicants. Learned Advocate Shri Chaudhary submits that subsequent thereto, the investigation had proceeded insofar as the accused no. 1 was concerned and whereas the Investigating Officer had filed charge-sheet whereby offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and offences punishable under Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act were added.

¶22

Learned Advocate Shri Chaudhary would further submit that the trial with regard to accused no. 1 had proceeded and whereas the prosecutrix in her deposition has inter alia refuted the allegations as made against the original accused. Learned Advocate Shri Chaudhary would further submit that the complainant has filed an affidavit whereby he has inter alia stated that the complaint was filed on account of some misunderstanding and whereas since the misunderstanding resulting in the dispute has been resolved, the complainant would not have any objection if the complaint is quashed. Learned Advocate would further submit that even the prosecutrix has also tendered an affidavit stating as much. Learned Advocate Shri Chaudhary would therefore submit that under such circumstances since the complainant and the prosecutrix both have agreed to the quashing of the complaint more particularly since the complaint was based upon misunderstanding therefore no fruitful purpose would be served if the complaint is kept pending against the applicants herein and therefore he requests that the complaint impugned may be quashed.

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

R/CR.MA/5351/2018 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2022

¶25

Learned Advocate Shri Bhatt supports and confirms whatever has been submitted by learned Advocate Shri Chaudhary. Learned Advocate Shri Bhatt would submit that the complainant is present and he may be permitted to join the meeting. Permission is granted. Upon joining the meeting the complainant -Nilabhai Kumbhabhai Rabari who is identified by learned Advocate Shri Bhatt confirms the fact of settlement and further confirms that he would not have any objection if the complaint impugned is quashed against the applicants herein.

¶26

Learned APP Ms. Mehta would submit that though the complaint alleged very serious offfences since in view of deposition of the complainant this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶27

Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocates for the parties since it appears to this Court that parties have settled the dispute inter se more particularly the principal allegations being levelled against the original accused no. 1 and whereas the prosecutrix having not supported the allegations levelled against the accused no. 1, 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 applicants herein are 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.

¶28

Having regard to the above discussions, the Criminal Complaint

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

R/CR.MA/5351/2018 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2022

¶31

being FIR No. C.R. No. I- 02 of 2018 registered on 26.01.2018 with Unava Police Station, Mahesana for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act and consequential proceedings arising from the impugned complaint qua the applicants i.e. original accused no. 3 to 6 are quashed. Application stands allowed to the above extent. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.

¶32

Direct service is permitted.

¶33

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)

¶34

NIRU

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Varsha @ Tinniben Sendhabhai Chaudhari v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varsha @ Tinniben Sendhabhai Chaudhari 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

Darpan @ Ajay Jentibhai Solanki 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