RANA KANUBHAI CHHAGANBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Respondents waive service. Considering the short dispute and settlement between the parties, Rule is heard today by consent of the parties. The petitioner is attributed with the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 384, 506(2) and 114 (for short "IPC") in the FIR, being I.C.R. No. 8 of 2014 registered with Radhanpur Police Station. The complainant has now filed an affidavit retracting the attribution of crime as made in the aforementioned FIR. According to her, the FIR does not contain true facts and was lodged under the pressure of her father, who had married her to one Kalpeshgiri Baldevgiri a year back against her wish but having disapproved the said marriage, she decided to leave her father's place and reside with the petitioner, who is her friend. In the affidavit, she has made a specific statement that she was not raped by the petitioner or that her ornaments were not handed over by the petitioner to Paras @ Parth Karsanbhai Pandya as alleged in the FIR. She has expressed her desire not to continue with the FIR.

(2.) SINCE the serious allegations particularly for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC were made, the matter was taken up in the chamber so as to verify the facts stated by respondent No. 2 -complainant on affidavit. On verification, she stated that she was aged 20 years and that the contents of the FIR were not true and the FIR was lodged under the pressure of her father and relatives and that in fact, she was forcibly married to one Kalpeshgiri Baldevgiri and did not like her marriage and therefore, decided to leave her father's house. In short, she has confirmed each and every statement made in the affidavit, during her oral verification by this Court.

(3.) TAKING into consideration the aforesaid peculiar facts, in view of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another ( : 2012(10) SCC 303), dispute being more or less appears of a private character, it is required to be quashed. In fact, the dispute does not exist in view of the affidavit of respondent No. 2 -complainant. Thus, the settlement as stated in the affidavit by respondent No. 2 is accepted and the FIR and all connected proceedings against the said petitioner stand quashed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 2800 of 2014, the petitioner is the person, who allegedly helped the petitioner of other petition in kidnapping the complainant and then taking away the ornaments of the complainant as handed over to him by Kanubhai Chhaganbhai Rana. Except that, no other allegations are made in the complaint against the said petitioner and since the main allegations against Kanubhai Chhaganbhai Rana are retracted, the case against this petitioner as well, cannot survive. Accordingly, the FIR and all connected proceedings against the said petitioner stand quashed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs