NIKHIL KESHAVPURI GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate for the applicantsoriginal accused, Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1State and Mr.Mahesh K. Poojara, learned advocate for respondent No.2first informant.

(2.) BY way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the Code the applicants have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No.I111 of 2009 registered at Anjar Police Station, Dist. Kachchh for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506 2 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 .Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate for the applicantsoriginal accused, has taken this Court through the allegations leveled in the impugned F.I.R. in particular and has submitted that applicant No.1 and the first informant have reunited and are staying together. It is further pointed out that applicant No.1 and the first informant have two children ­ viz. Vaidehi, who is aged about 9 years, and son Aryan, who is aged about 5 years. It is submitted that the applicants, the first informant as well as their two children are at present residing together. Learned advocate for the applicants further submits that in view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, which was predominantly of domestic in nature and was a matrimonial dispute, any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. shall amount to harassment to the parties and in view of the fact that the parties have reunited and have amicably settled the dispute 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 Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 4 S.C.C. 582 as well as Nikhil Merchant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2008 9 SCC 671 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 quash the impugned F.I.R. as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R.