Suleman Mohammad Mangera Vs State of Gujarat

R.M. Chhaya, J.@mdashHeard Mr. Premal S. Rachh, learned advocate for the applicants, Ms. Hansa B. Punani, learned APP for respondent No. 1 - State, Mr. Pratik Y. Jasani, learned advocate for respondent No. 2.

2. Rule. Ms. Hansa B. Punani, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State and Mr. Pratik Y. Jasani, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. By way of this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR bearing CR No. I-31 of 2014 registered with Navsari Rural Police Station for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicants.

4. It is noticed that when the application was preferred, the same was argued on merits and this Court vide order dated 23.4.2014, while adjourning the matter, has ordered that till returnable date, no coercive steps be taken against the applicants.

5. It appears that during pendency of this application, the parties have amicably settled the issue. In this factual background, with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

6. Mr. Premal Rachh, learned advocate for the applicants states that even though the application filed by the applicants u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the parties have resolved the dispute which was of a commercial and personal in nature, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would result into harassment to the parties. It is submitted that after the order dated 23.4.2014, respondent No. 2 who is citizen and republic of South Africa came to India during the month of May, 2014 and because of intervention of the elders in the family, the parties have amicably resolved the issue and hence, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would result into abuse of process of law and as the parties have resolved the issue which was of a commercial and personal in nature, the trial would be futile. It is further submitted that even though some offences are non-compoundable as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , this Court can exercise inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR as prayed for.

7. Ms. Hansa B. Punani, learned APP states that the documents annexed with the affidavit, which are tendered by the learned advocate for respondent No. 2, indicate that respondent No. 2 was in India from 28.3.2014 to 14.5.2014 and as the parties have amicably resolved the issue as stated in the affidavit, which is not affecting the society at large, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

8. Mr. Pratik Y. Jasani, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 has tendered an affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 - the first informant dated 20.5.2014 which has been sworn-in at Navsari. Mr. Jasani, relying upon the entry of passport of respondent No. 2 as well as Visa which was granted by the Union of India, further submitted that respondent No. 2 was in India on a tourist Visa and was entered the territory of India on 14.5.2014. The learned advocate for respondent No. 2 reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. The learned advocate for respondent No. 2 further submitted that since the complainant is out of India, the affidavit may be considered by this Court. The learned advocate for the applicants also submitted that the affidavit is made by respondent No. 2-first informant when she was in India. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed.

9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, , Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others, and Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law and Court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred u/s 482 of the Code.

10. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing CR No. I-31 of 2014 registered with Navsari Rural Police Station filed against the present applicants is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.