CR.MA/5018/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 5018 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 ? ========================================= = MAHESHKUMAR GHANSHYAMDAS SADHU Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR ========================================= = Appearance : MR MAHENDRA K PATEL for Applicant:1 MR MUKESH PATEL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent:1 MR SUNIL L MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 24/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr.M.A.Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule and Mr.Sunil Mehta, learned Advocate CR.MA/5018/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2- original complainant. 2. Having regard to the facts of the case, by consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today. 3. The facts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint against the petitioner herein alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code which came to be registered as a First Information Report vide Bhachau Police Station I- C.R.No.43 of 2008. The allegation against the petitioner was to the effect that he had induced the daughter of the complainant Babitaben, aged about 19 years with a view to marry her. 4. By the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('the Code'), the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the aforesaid First Information Report. 5. It appears that, subsequently, the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them, pursuant to which, the petitioner herein has agreed that he would permit his wife to attend any religious and/or personal ceremony at Bihar in case any such occasion arises. He has also stated that he would look after his wife and in case of any disputes between them, inform her parents immediately. 6. Mr.M.K.Patel, learned Advocate has tendered an undertaking CR.MA/5018/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT dated 24th June, 2008 executed by the petitioner. The same is taken on record. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner has executed an undertaking pursuant to which the respondent-original complainant no longer desires to prosecute the complaint. 7. Mr.Sunil Mehta, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and has submitted that in view of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, more so in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 does not desire to prosecute the complaint against the petitioner any further. The complainant Pushpadevi Jagdishbhai Tiwari is also present before this Court and she has affirmed what is stated by the learned Advocate appearing on her behalf. Both the learned Advocates for the parties have jointly submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the complaint in question be quashed in the interest of justice. 8. It is settled legal position as held by the Apex Court as well as this Court and other High Courts that in case where the parties have settled the disputes between them, more so in cases arising out of matrimonial disputes, it is permissible for this Court upon consideration of facts of each case to quash the complaint even offences alleged are not compoundable in nature. 9. In the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the parties have settled their disputes between them, pursuant to which the respondent No.2 is no longer desires to prosecute the complaint. Even otherwise, looking to the facts of the present CR.MA/5018/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT case, the daughter of the complainant is 19 years of age. She appears to have voluntarily gone with the petitioner No.1, hence, no offence as alleged can be stated to have been made out against the petitioner. In the circumstances, this is a fit case for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. 10. For the foregoing reasons, application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The First Information Report registered vide Bhachau Police Station I-C.R.No.43 of 2008 is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. (HARSHA DEVANI, J.) Amit/-