CR.MA/8411/2008 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 8411 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= MAHESH VASUDEV NAGDEV & 2 - Petitioners Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondents ========================================================= Appearance : MS MEGHA R CHITALIA for Petitioners. MR MAULIK NANAVATI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent No.1 MS SAMATA PATEL FOR NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent No.2 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 20/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Shri Maulik G.Nanavati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of CR.MA/8411/2008 2/6 JUDGMENT notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1-State of Gujarat and Ms.Samata Patel, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the application is taken up for final hearing today. 2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners-original accused have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned complaint/FIR being C.R.No.II – 3046 of 2008 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad. 3. Petitioner No.1 is the father-in-law of the complainant, petitioner No.2 is the brother of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 is the sister of the petitioner No.1. The daughter of petitioner No.1 has married with the complainant and because of that initially there was some CR.MA/8411/2008 3/6 JUDGMENT heart-burning. The respondent No.2 has lodged complaint being C.R.No.II – 3046 of 2008 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the nature and the allegations made in the FIR, the learned Single Judge of this Court issued notice and granted interim relief staying the further proceedings pursuant to the said FIR. Thereafter the aforesaid application came up for hearing before this Court and looking to the controversy and the allegation in the complaint and the dispute which prima-facie was found to be a family dispute between mother, sister and son-in-law, this Court intervened and tried to settle the dispute amicably between the parties. The respective parties shown their positive approach and they have immediately agreed for settling the dispute amicably. It is reported that thereafter the parties have gone to the residence of each other happily. CR.MA/8411/2008 4/6 JUDGMENT 4. To-day when the matter is called out, it is reported by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties in presence of the petitioners that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and then they have no grievance whatsoever and it is submitted that the respondent No.2 herein-original complainant is not interested in proceedings with the complaint/FIR. Thus, it appears that thereafter the dispute which was on some misunderstanding is resolved amicably and happily. 5. Under the circumstances and considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S.JOSHI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER reported in 2003(2) GLH 351, this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and for the purpose of securing the ends of justice. Under the circumstances it has become necessary to quash the complaint/FIR. Even otherwise in view CR.MA/8411/2008 5/6 JUDGMENT of the stand taken by the respondent No.2 herein- original complainant, it appears that there are chances of conviction as he may not support the prosecution. 6. Under the circumstances and considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi (supra) and considering the fact that the family disputes have been amicably settled and the entire litigation is to put an end, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and the impugned FIR/complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly the complaint being C.R.No.II – 3046 of 2008 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad lodged by the respondent No.2 herein against the petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Before parting with the present order, this CR.MA/8411/2008 6/6 JUDGMENT Court appreciates the efforts made by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and the respective parties to resolve the dispute amicably. ( M.R. SHAH, J. ) syed/