CHAMPABEN MANSUKHBHAI BARAIYA PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed seeking direction for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. being CR. No. I-3 of 2017 registered with Morbi City, A Division Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(J)(M), 313 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act).

(2.) At the outset, learned advocate Mr. V.H. Kanara, appearing for the applicants, has submitted that by the order dated 06.10.2018 passed in Special Criminal Application No. 8 64 6 of 2 018, the impugned F.I.R. has been quashed and set aside qua the accused No. 1 who is a husband of the first informant. He has submitted that this Court has set aside the F.I.R. apropos in view of the settlement arrived at between the first informant and the husband. He has submitted that the present applicants are the family members of the accused No. 1-husband and hence, in view of the order dated 06.10.2018, the impugned F.I.R. qua other accused i.e. the applicants may also be quashed and set aside.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the present applicants are family members of the accused No. 1 i.e. Dilipbhai Mansukhbhai Baraiya Patel who is the husband of the first informant. In the order dated 06.10.2018 passed in Special Criminal Application No. 8646 of 2018, this Court, after considering the facts and circumstances and more particularly, the submissions advanced by the respective parties, has quashed and set aside the impugned F.I.R. qua the accused No. 1 i.e husband of the first informant. It is specifically recorded by this Court that parties have amicably resolved the issue and, therefore, further proceedings arising from the F.I.R. would create hardships. It is further recorded that respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit in this proceedings and has declared that the dispute is resolved between the first informant and the accused No. 1 and hence further trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedungs pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. would amount to abuse of process of law and the Court. After recording such contentions, this Court has quashed and set aside the impugned F.I.R.