SUNIL BHAI RATILAL PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Chirag Parekh, for Mr. Chetan B. Raval, learned Advocate for the applicant-original accused, Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP for the State and Mr. Viral J. Vyas for Mr. Sanjay Prajapati, learned advocate for respondent No.2 - first informant.

(2.) BY way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the applicant ­ original accused has prayed for quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No.I- 266 of 2012 registered at Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad for the alleged offences under Sections 392, 323, 294(B), 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R.

(3.) MR . Chirag Parekh, learned Advocate for the applicant-original accused, has taken this Court to the factual matrix arising out of the present application. It is submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR as such do not constitute any offence as alleged and the same is of a domestic nature. It is submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise deed dated 09.02.2013 and the first informant i.e. respondent No.2 has also made an affidavit dated 19.12.2012, copy of which is produced on record. Relying upon the compromise deed dated 09.02.2013, which is also placed on record, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and hence, any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR shall amount to harassment to the applicant and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties trial would be futile and the same would also amount to abuse of process of law and court. It is submitted that in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and may quash the impugned FIR as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR.