Allowed

Vicky Jayeshkumar Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC3 Feb 2022SCR.A/4306/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An SCA for quashing an FIR alleging matrimonial offences was allowed on the basis of a subsequent private settlement between the husband and wife, who have resumed living together, with the consent of the complainant supported by submissions from the prosecution and original complainant.

What did the court decide?

The impugned complaint and pending criminal case were quashed based on the settlement and consent of the parties.

Vicky Jayeshkumar Brahmbhatt Vs State of Gujarat — Dowry and Cruelty | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

R/SCR.A/4306/2020 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4306 of 2020

¶4

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

¶5

VICKY JAYESHKUMAR BRAHMBHATT

¶6

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

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

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR ZUBIN BHARDA with MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR JM BAROT(143) 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 : 03/02/2022

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda and learned

¶15

Advocate Ms. Dimple A. Thaker on behalf of the applicant and learned APP Ms. M. D. Mehta for respondent-State, Learned Advocate Mr. J. M. Barot for the respondent no. 2- original complainant.

¶16

By way of this application, the applicant prays for quashing of FIR No. 11191045201759 registered with the Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad City for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section

¶17

3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on 25.08.2020.

¶18

Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda on behalf of the applicant would

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

R/SCR.A/4306/2020 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2022

¶21

submit that while the petition had initially being preferred on its own merits, now the parties being the husband and his mother as the applicants and wife as the complainant have settled the matter inter se and whereas the husband and wife are now living together and therefore, learned Advocate Mr. Bharda would submit that considering the settlement, this Court may quash the impugned complaint.

¶22

Submissions of learned Advocate Mr. Bharda is supported by learned Advocate Mr. Barot who further submits that the complainant has filed an affidavit stating about the facts of the settlement as well as her consent for quashing of the complaint. Learned Advocate Mr. Barot would further submit that the complainant is present and she may be permitted to join the meeting. Permission is granted. Upon joining of the meeting the complainant Mrs. Dharaben Vicky Brahmbhatt, is identified by learned Advocate Mr. Barot and upon inquiry by this Court confirms the fact of settlement and also confirms that she would not have any objection if the complaint impugned is quashed.

¶23

4.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda at this stage would

¶24

further submit that cross complaints had been filed by the applicant no. 2 and whereas petition praying for quashing of the complaint preferred by the applicant herein has also been filed which would be taken up by the

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

R/SCR.A/4306/2020 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2022

¶27

Learned Co-ordinate Bench with taking up such matters.

¶28

Learned APP Ms. Mehta would submit that considering the fact

¶29

that the dispute between the parties was private in nature, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶30

Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and observations of the 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), the impugned complaint and Criminal Case No. 813 of 2021 pending before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) are quashed. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute.

¶31

Direct service is permitted.

¶32

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)

¶33

Mrs. J. J. Kedia

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Vicky Jayeshkumar Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vicky Jayeshkumar Brahmbhatt 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

Maruf Maksud Sheikh Vs State of Gujarat

Vikramsinh Nathabhai Parmar Vs Shaileshchandra Maheshchandra Bhatt

Akhilbhai Dharmendra Gupta Vs State of Gujarat

Vinod Punamchand Daga Vs State of Gujarat

Rajubhai Bhopabhai Chavda Vs State of Gujarat

Chiragbhai Prahaladbhai Makwana Vs State of Gujarat