| |
CDJ 2026 GHC 369
|
| Court : In the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad |
| Case No : R/Criminal Misc.Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) No. 4951 Of 2023 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M. RAVAL |
| Parties : Vivekbhai Avdheshbhai Tiwari (Disposed Of As Not Pressed As Order Dtd. 20.04.2023) & Others Versus State Of Gujarat & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Applicants: Vaibhav N. Sheth(5337), Advocate. For the Respondents: Amita S. Shah(2691), Advocate, K.M. Antani, APP. |
| Date of Judgment : 18-08-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 4 -
|
| Summary :- |
Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
- Sections 498-A, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
Catch Words:
quash, FIR, settlement, inherent power, abuse of process, compromise, amicable settlement, criminal proceedings, relief
Summary:
The Court heard counsel for both parties, who waived service. The parties disclosed an amicable settlement, and the de‑facto complainant filed an affidavit expressing no objection to quashing the FIR. The Court examined the wide but cautious scope of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, referring to Supreme Court precedents. Considering the settlement and lack of grievance, the Court held that continuation of the criminal prosecution would be futile and an abuse of process. Accordingly, the FIR and all consequential proceedings were ordered to be quashed. The rule was made absolute and direct service permitted.
Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
Oral Order
1. Heard, learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. Rule. The learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at bar by the learned advocates for the respective parties that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
4. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.11199002230001 of 2023, registered with Mahila Police Station, Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
5. The learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the de facto complainant has also filed an Affidavit, which is taken on record. In the Affidavit, the de facto complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant has been resolved amicably and she has no objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.
6. The de facto complainant is present before the Court today. When questioned, the complainant has unequivocally stated that she has entered into compromise with the accused and they have amicably settled the dispute and that, she has no objection to quash the FIR that is registered against the applicant.
7. It is apt here to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of CrPC are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage as held by the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.
8. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) as also considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is resolved amicably and complainant has no objection if the FIR is quashed, in the opinion of this Court, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the present applicant would be an exercise in futility and abuse of process of law. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof.
9. In fine, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR, as referred to herein above, as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof, are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant herein.
9.2 Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
|
| |
