BRIJESH KANTILAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Pinakin M. Raval, learned advocate for the petitionersoriginal accused, Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1State and Ms.Harshal N. Pandya, learned advocate for respondent No.2 first informant.

(2.) BY way of the present petition, the petitionersoriginal accused, who are husband, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw respectively of respondent No.2first informant, have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No.I65 of 2010 registered at Mahila Police Station, Vadodara City for the offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as all consequential proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the petitioners has further submitted that 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. Reliance is also placed upon the decisions rendered in the cases of Nikhil Merchant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2009(1) GLH 31 as well as in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., 2009(1) GLH 190, and, therefore, 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 F.I.R. as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R.