SCR.A/925/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 925 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 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 ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= MUKESHBHAI GANGJIBHAI MACCHAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER ========================================= Appearance : MR HRIDAY BUCH for the Petitioners MR KP RAVAL, APP for Respondent No.1 MR SIRAJ GORI, for Respondent No.2 ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 13/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and Mr. Siraj Gori, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2. SCR.A/925/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. The facts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No.2 herein had lodged a complaint against the petitioner No.1 alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code which came to be registered as a First Information Report being Fatepura Police Station I C.R. No.3 of 2008. It was alleged that the petitioner No.1 herein had induced Sharmistha, daughter of the complainant aged about 17 years with a view to marry her. Subsequently, it appears that the police has made a report before the learned Judicial Magistrate for addition of section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that subsequently, the complainant and the petitioner No.1 herein have settled the dispute in the presence of panchas on 9th April, 2008 and the same has been reduced in writing by an agreement bearing the same date. As per the said agreement, the complainant has received the amount as per the custom of the tribe to which both the parties belong and has accordingly settled the dispute in the presence of the panchas. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have moved the present petition praying for quashing the First Information Report in question. 4. In response to the averments made in the petition, the respondent No.2 – original complainant has filed an affidavit in reply stating that there is a compromise between the parties and that the statement made in that regard in the petition is true. It is categorically averred that the daughter of the complainant Sharmistha is residing with the petitioner SCR.A/925/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT No.1 as his wife, ever since she eloped with him and both of them are leading a happily married life. She has acknowledged the compromise deed executed by the parties in the presence of panchas on 9th April, 2008. It is also categorically stated that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the petitioner No.1 and that she has no objection if the proceedings initiated by her are quashed. 5. Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that as the petitioner No.2 Sharmistha, daughter of the complainant had willingly gone with the petitioner No.1, no offence as alleged can be stated to have been committed. It is further submitted that as the petitioners have married and are residing together as husband and wife, no offence under section 307 can also be said to be constituted against the petitioner No.1. It is urged that now that the complainant herself has agreed to the marriage and a compromise has been arrived at in the presence of panchas, the interest of justice requires that the complaint in question be quashed. 6. Mr. Siraj Gori, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has reiterated the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioners. Both the learned advocates for the parties have jointly submitted that the complaint in question be quashed in the interest of justice. 7. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the parties, the First Information Report, the compromise deed as well as affidavit-in-reply filed SCR.A/925/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT by the respondent No.2. Though, strictly speaking the petitioner No.2 being 17 years of age, it cannot be said that no offence as alleged is made out. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein parties to the dispute have compromised the matter and the original complainant who is the mother of the girl has agreed to the marriage, the interest of justice lies in resolving the matter amicably. Since, the daughter of the complainant has already married the petitioner No.1, prosecuting the complaint any further would only cause undue harassment to the girl and would not permit the petitioners to settle down in the life. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. In the circumstances, the interest of justice would best be served if the complaint in question is quashed. This is therefore, a fit case for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The First Information Report being being Fatepura Police Station I C.R. No.3 of 2008 is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted. (HARSHA DEVANI, J.) shekhar/-