ORDER :

1. The present petition has been preferred with prayer to quash and set aside the criminal complaint being FIR M Case No.1 of 2016 dated 02.03.2016, registered with Radhanpur Police Station, Patan for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 494, 496, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the present petitioners.

2. The report of the Police Inspector, Radhanpur Police Station has been filed by learned APP with the statement recorded of Pravinabanu daughter of Nurmohamad Chauhan, dated 05.01.2023. As per the report, the complainant – Pravinbanu Wife of Nurmahamad Sama had moved before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Radhanpur by filing a Criminal Inquiry No.06 of 2016 and the Hon’ble Court by outward (Javak) No.240 of 2016, dated 01.03.2016 had passed an order for an inquiry under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the report thus states that in pursuance of the order on 02.03.2016, at about 16.30 hours, the offence came to be registered.

2.1 The report also states that the marriage of the complainant was with the accused Sama Ishakbhai Mahebubbhai in the year 2006, and her husband had informed her that after a few days he was to marry and threatened her to do whatever she can, and it is stated that thereafter the mobile came to be switched off. It is further alleged that accused Nos. 2 & 4 had threatened her to do away with her life, and therefore, the complaint came to be filed stating that during the subsistence of the marriage, second marriage was conducted.

2.2 Today, report is produced alongwith statement of the complainant, recorded on 05.01.2023, which shows that the complainant and her father Nurmohammad Abubhai Chauhan, have amicably settled the dispute with the accused and the complainant has already received divorce from the accused Sama Ishaqbhai, and in view of the settlement, she does not want to pursue the complaint.

[3] Mr. Y.J.Patel, learned advocate referring to the facts of the case stated that the parties to the disputes belong to the Muslim community, hence, Sections 494 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted in the matter. He further stated that earlier a criminal complaint as C.R.No.II- 3069 of 2011 was filed and after leading the evidence, all the accused persons came to be acquitted vide an order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patdi, and against that, the complainant had preferred an appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.; while the said order of acquittal was confirmed by an order dated 06.12.2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharngadhra and subsequently again, the respondent No.2 moved before the J.M.F.C. Patan, where the order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was passed, which Mr.Patel stated that, it was bad in law; and submitted that learned Magistrate ought to have kept the complaint before him and should have made his own inquiry, then the fact would have been detailed out that earlier on the very same ground the complaint was filed, and the ground as raised under sections 498A & 3 of the IPC and 3 & 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Criminal Case No.145 of 2013 was filed; and on 26.08.2014, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, acquitted the accused and the same order was confirmed on 06.12.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2014 by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra.

4. Advocate Ms.Zeel Raval for Mr.Malav Mulani, learned advocate for respondent no.2 states that, the police has recorded the statement of the complainant and her father, which under instructions, is true and the complainant and her father have amicably settled the issue, and they do not want to pursue the matter.

5. This Court, while verifying the facts, had called for report of the police and the statement to be recorded of the concerned person and in compliance of the order dated 04.01.2023, the report has been produced alongwith the statement of Pravina