Allowed

Akhilbhai Dharmendra Gupta v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC2 Feb 2022CR.MA/8616/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal miscellaneous application for quashing a domestic violence complaint was allowed. The High Court upheld the settlement between the husband and wife, determining that no legal purpose would be served in continuing criminal proceedings arising from personal matrimonial disputes.

What did the court decide?

The complaint for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 IPC and any proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Akhilbhai Dharmendra Gupta Vs State of Gujarat — Domestic Violence | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

R/CR.MA/8616/2020 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8616 of 2020

¶4

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

¶5

AKHILBHAI DHARMENDRA GUPTA

¶6

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

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

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

AADITYA D BHATT(8580) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 CHANDNI S JOSHI(9490) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS MD MEHTA, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

¶12

Date : 02/02/2022

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Aaditya D. Bhatt on behalf of the

¶15

applicants and learned APP Ms. M. D. Mehta for the respondent-State, learned Advocate Mr. Ankit Y. Bachani for respondent no. 2.

¶16

Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. M. D. Mehta would

¶17

waive service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Ankit Y. Bachani would waive service of rule on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

¶18

Learned Advocates Mr. Bhatt and Mr. Bachani would jointly

¶19

submit that pending the present petition, the parties have settled the

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

R/CR.MA/8616/2020 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

¶22

disputes inter se and whereas the complainant according to learned Advocate Mr. Bachani would not have any objection if the complaint impugned is quashed.

¶23

Learned Advocate Mr. Bachani would request permission to join complainant in the present meeting. Permission is granted. Upon joining of the meeting, the complainant Ms. Nikitaben, daughter of Dipakkumar Munnaram Gupta, who is identified by learned Advocate Mr. Bachani, confirms the fact of settlement between the parties and further confirms that she would not have any objection if the complaint impugned in the present petition is quashed. Learned Advocate Mr. Bachani would submit that even an affidavit has been preferred by the complainant stating as such and whereas he would request permission to file such affidavit. Such affidavit shall be filed by the learned Advocate by 07.02.2022.

¶24

Learned APP Ms. Mehta would submit that the dispute being personal in nature, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶25

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and having considered the impugned complaint, since the dispute between the parties was personal in nature, more particularly, the complainant and the applicant no. 1 being husband

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

R/CR.MA/8616/2020 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

¶28

and wife, since it appears that the parties have settled the matter inter se, in the considered opinion of this Court no fruitful purpose would be served in permitting the complaint being C. R. No. I – 11195010200135 of 2020, dated 15.03.2020 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with the Palanpur West Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha to proceed any further.

¶29

This Court relies upon the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of 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) in coming to the above mentioned conclusion.

¶30

Having regard to the impugned complaint being C. R. No. I – 11195010200135 of 2020, dated 15.03.2020 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with the Palanpur West Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha and any proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute.

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

R/CR.MA/8616/2020 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

¶33

9. Direct service is permitted.

¶34

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)

¶35

Mrs. J. J. Kedia

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Akhilbhai Dharmendra Gupta v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilbhai Dharmendra Gupta 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

Husainaben D/O Ismailsha Husainsha Divan Vs State of Gujarat

Jayeshkumar Ramanlal Shah Vs State of Gujarat

Tarun Rasiklal Shah, Thro' Indiraben P. Raval Mother of Applicant Vs State of Gujarat

Maruf Maksud Sheikh Vs State of Gujarat

Vikramsinh Nathabhai Parmar Vs Shaileshchandra Maheshchandra Bhatt

Rajesh Tarachand Sheth Vs M/S High Tech Litho Private Limited through Ramakant R. Shukla, Manager Administration)