Settlement outside Court and acquittal of the main accused can be grounds for quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings if further continuation of criminal proceedings would be futile and an abuse of process of law and Court.

JUDGMENT :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no. 1 and learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no. 2.

2. By way of this petition, prayer is made to quash FIR being C.R. No. I-135 of 2015 registered on 29.09.2015 for the offence punishable under sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of IPC with Dahod Town Police Station.

3. The prayer is made limited to present petitioners only. Other accused-Dilipkmar of the offence is husband of the deceased.

4. During arguments, learned advocate Mr. Kapadia for the petitioners would submit that since the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court, the grievance made in the Sessions Case No. 203 of 2015 which arose against main accused-Dilipkumar has resulted into order of acquittal. Learned advocate Mr. Kapadia would bring to the notice of this Court that original complainant i.e. father of the deceased as well as mother and brother of the deceased turned hostile during trial of Sessions Case No. 203 of 2015 and did not support the case of the prosecution. Such contention has weighed the learned Sessions Judge to acquit the main accused who is husband of the deceased. He would submit that considering role of the petitioners who are mother and father of the main accused and in-laws of the deceased, allowing FIR to roll out into Sessions Case would be futile exercise. Therefore, he submits to quash and set aside the FIR.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for respondent no. 2 in utter fairness would submit that complainant has chosen not to raise grievance as the parties have settled the dispute. He has also placed on record affidavit of respondent no. 2 along with Vakalatnama which is taken on record. Thus, he would submit to pass necessary order. Affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 indicates following:

“1. I say that because of temperamental difference with the petitioner, I have filed the FIR against the petitioners which came to be registered with Dahod Police Station being C.R. No. I-135 of 2015 (for short “the FIR”) for the offence punishable u/s. 306, 498(A) and 114 of Indian Penal Code.

2. I say that since the dispute out of which the criminal proceedings have arisen have been compromised between myself and the petitioners herein and accordingly, I therefore, most humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court to quash and set aside the aforesaid FIR lodged by me against and qua the petitioner and grant the reliefs as prayed for in the petition.

3. I say that I am filing present affidavit and the petition for quashing of FIR lodged by me as the disputes out of which the criminal proceedings had arisen have been compromised upon the intervention of the elder members of the family and therefore, to secure ends of justice, FIR may be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.”

6. Learned APP in this given circumstances joining submission of learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani has requested to pass necessary order.

7. Main accused-Dilipkumar has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Court. Perusing the FIR, it appears that main allegation of ill-treatment and abatement as well as of instigation are made against main accused-Dilipkumar. Perusing the judgment passed in Sessions Case No. 203 of 2015 would indicate that original complainant as well as his family members who are parents and brother of the deceased did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile, resulting into acquittal of main accused. The allegation of ill treatment and abatement made in the FIR and charge sheet papers remain un-buttressed. Said fact is also supported by the affidavit of original complainant, contents of which are placed herein above.

8. Having heard the learned counsel 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 Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot