PATEL SURESHBHAI RANCHODBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Nisarg Raval, learned advocate for the applicants, Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1State and Mr.Nasir Saiyed, learned advocate for respondent No.2original complainant.

(2.) BY way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), the applicants have, inter alia, prayed for quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No.II274 of 2009 registered at Mansa Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R.

(3.) MR .Nisarg Raval, learned advocate for the applicants, has submitted that the investigation was carried out and chargesheet is also filed. However, thereafter applicant No.1 and the first informant took customary divorce, which is evident from the divorce deed dated 27.04.2012 (at AnnexureC to this application). It is further submitted that as per the said deed of divorce the first informant as well as applicant No.1 mutually agreed that any pending litigation between applicant No.1 and the first informant would be withdrawn. It is further submitted that the applicants and the first informant, because of intervention of the elders in the community, have been able to sort out the dispute amicably, which facilitated the divorce between applicant No.1 and the first informant. It is further submitted that affidavit dated 22.01.2013 is also filed by respondent No.2 before this Court, inter alia, declaring that the parties have amicably settled the dispute outside the court and the first informant has no objection if the present application is allowed as prayed for. Learned advocate for the applicants has further submitted that any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. shall amount to harassment to the applicants and considering the fact that applicant No.1 and the first informant have taken divorce and to the best knowledge of the applicants, the first informant also remarried, the same would harassment to the parties and, therefore, it is submitted that in order secure the ends of justice, this Court may quash the impugned F.I.R. as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R.