Quashed

Dhaivat Chandrakant Bhavsar v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC16 Feb 2022SCR.A/4213/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat, in a special criminal application, quashed an FIR and associated proceedings involving matrimonial disputes. Relying on settled principles from the Supreme Court, the court held that proceeding further in a matter where parties have mutually settled and the complainant has no objection would be futile.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR C.R. No. I/52 of 2016 and Criminal Case No. 8235 of 2016 stand quashed.

Dhaivat Chandrakant Bhavsar Vs State of Gujarat — Dowry and Cruelty | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

R/SCR.A/4213/2016 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4213 of 2016

¶4

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

¶5

DHAIVAT CHANDRAKANT BHAVSAR & 8 other(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR MM ANSARI for MR VIRAL M PANDYA(5257) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR. SOEB R. BHOHARIA(2205) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS MD MEHTA, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶11

MR VALIMOHAMMED PATHAN(6383) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

¶12

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

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

¶14

Date : 16/02/2022

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

Heard learned Advocate Mr. M. M. Ansari for learned Advocate Mr. Viral M. Pandya on behalf of the applicants and learned APP Ms. M. D. Mehta for respondent-State, learned Advocate Mr. Valimohammed Pathan for respondent no. 2-original complainant.

¶17

By way of this petition, the petitioners seek for quashment of FIR being C. R. No. I/52 of 2016 registered with Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad on 05.06.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections- 498A, 323, 294(b), 114 of the Indian Penal Code, for the offences punishable under Section-135 of the Gujarat Police Act and for the offences punishable under Sections- 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

R/SCR.A/4213/2016 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022

¶20

Act.

¶21

Learned Advocate Mr. Ansari on behalf of the applicants would submit that while the petition had originally been preferred praying for quashing of the complaint on its merits, later on, more particularly, since the dispute was matrimonial in nature, the parties have settled the dispute inter se and whereas the complainant does not have any objection for quashing of the complaint therefore, he submits that the impugned complaint may be quashed by this Court.

¶22

3.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Ansari would further submit that

¶23

while the FIR had been preferred making allegations against eleven persons, the Investigating Officer had filed charge sheet which arraigned only applicants no. 1 to 8 herein as accused.

¶24

Submissions of Mr. Ansari are supported by learned Advocate Mr. Pathan who would submit that the complainant has filed an affidavit stating on record the fact of settlement between the parties and further the fact of the complainant not having any objection for quashing of the impugned complaint.

¶25

4.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Pathan would submit that the

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

R/SCR.A/4213/2016 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022

¶28

complainant is present in his office and that she may be permitted to join the meeting. Upon joining the meeting, the complainant who has identified by learned Advocate Mr. Pathan, confirms the fact of settlement and further confirms that she would not have any objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.

¶29

Learned APP Ms. Mehta would submit that while the allegations

¶30

leveled in FIR are quite serious, in view of the settlement between the parties, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶31

Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocates for the parties, more particularly, considering the fact that the dispute in question appeared to be a matrimonial dispute and the fact that the parties have settled the matter inter se, this Court is of the considered opinion that permitting the FIR and any proceedings arising therefrom to proceed any further would be an exercise in futility.

¶32

This Court relies upon the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court 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

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

R/SCR.A/4213/2016 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022

¶35

Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) to arrive at the above conclusion.

¶36

Having regard to the same, the impugned FIR being C. R. No. I/ 52 of 2016 registered with Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad on 05.06.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections- 498A, 323, 294(b), 114 of the Indian Penal Code, for the offences punishable under Section-135 of the Gujarat Police Act and for the offences punishable under Sections- 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and further proceedings arising therefrom including Criminal Case No. 8235 of 2016 pending before the 6^th Additional Civil Judge at JMFC, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad stand quashed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

¶37

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)

¶38

Mrs. J. J. Kedia

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Dhaivat Chandrakant Bhavsar v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhaivat Chandrakant Bhavsar 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

Bharatbhai Naranbhai Thakore Vs State of Gujarat

Jayantilal Nagarbhai Thakore Vs State of Gujarat

Shardaben Jagdishbhai Raval Vs State of Gujarat

Pravinbhai Raychand Shah Thro Priyank Pravinbhai Shah Vs State of Gujarat

Lalbhadur Ram Akbaal Sharma Vs State of Gujarat

Darshan Bharatbhai Kothari Vs State of Gujarat