1. Learned advocate Ms.Prachi Rathod states that she has instructions to appear for respondent No.2 - complainant and victim-Ms.Sonalben and seeks permission to file appearance. Permission is accordingly granted.
2. Learned advocate Ms.Prachi Rathod confirms identity of Respondent No.2 and victim, who are present before the Court. The victim has filed affidavit through learned advocate Ms.Prachi Rathod and the same is ordered to be taken on record. The respondent No.2 has also filed affidavit which is at Annexure-D to the application. The respondent No.2 and victim admit genuineness and correctness of affidavits.
3. Rule. Learned A.P.P. and learned advocate Ms.Prachi Rathod waive service of Rule for respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The learned A.P.P. objects quashment of the present proceedings on the premise of settlement.
4. With the consent of learned advocate for the applicant and learned advocate for respondent No.2 - original complainant and victim, present application is taken up for final disposal today.
5. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the 'Code'), the applicant prays for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. being C.R.No.I-319 of 2012 registered with Naranpura police station for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application.
7. The applicant is facing aforementioned offences instituted by the complainant for the alleged incident suffered by complainant's daughter.
8. The victim has made following averments in the affidavit:-
"3. The dispute involved in the F.I.R. between myself and the accused person i.e. petitioner and original complainant herein has been resolved amicably and the I was no grievance with regard to the same. I was already got married with the petitioner on 13.12.2013 and a child has been born out of our wedlock on 06.10.2014, who is now going to be aged 5 years."
9. It is now stated at bar that the applicant, respondent No.2 and the victim have settled the dispute amicably and the complainant and victim have no grievance against the applicant. Not only that the victim and the applicant have Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 09 22:01:41 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/23964/2019 ORDER married on 13.12.2013 and out of said wedlock, they have delivered a baby child on 06.10.2014. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have placed on record photocopy of birth certificate issued on 23.04.2018. Thus, the applicant and victim have child aged about five years out of their wedlock.
10. It is in light of this aspect, the applicant, respondent No.2 and the victim urged that impugned criminal proceedings being the FIR may be quashed.
11. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod appearing for the contesting respondent No.2 and the victim points out that since the victim has already married with the applicant, it will be more in her interest that the impugned criminal proceedings may be quashed, as otherwise, their marital life will be put into jeopardize and there is no one to take care of her as well as her child, who is hardly aged about five years.
12. It is now settled that in serious offence as one u/s 376 of the IPC cannot be subject matter of quashment of the proceedings initiated u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground of settlement between the accused and the victim. Suffice it to refer the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on such aspect, more particularly, in cases of Anita Maria Dias Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 3 SCC 290, Shimbu Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 13 SCC 318 and Parbatbhai Ahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641. However, this Court cannot overlook the fact that the applicant and the victim girl got married and out of said wedlock, they have a child aged about five years. Such situation is an exception to Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 09 22:01:41 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/23964/2019 ORDER the approach to deal with the proceedings initiated u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of settlement between the complainant, victim and the accused and for the pre-dominant purpose of the welfare of the victim to ensure her better future life, it is just and proper for this Court in exercise of extraordinary inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could quash the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the parties in cases where the accused has married and the complainant and the victim insist for quashment of impugned criminal proceedings.
13. In view of the aforementioned aspect, more particularly, in light of the statements made by respondent No.2 and the victim supported by duly affirmed affidavits placed on record through learned advocate Ms.Rathod, this Court is inclined to consider the plea for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings, as otherwise, it will detrimentally affect the family life of the victim girl and even the balance and harmony that could be achieved by them in the resolution of disputes that again be irrecoverably lost.
14. Since now, the dispute with reference to the impugned F.I.R. is settled and resolved by and between parties which is confirmed by the original complainant and victim through learned advocate, the trial would be futile and any further continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, the impugned F.I.R. is required to be quashed and set aside in view of peculiar facts of the case being exception to the general principle of law to decline the quashment of proceedings of the nature like present one.
15. In view of this position, this application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R.No.I-319 of 2012 registered with Naranpura police station as well as Criminal Case No.2 of 2014 pending in the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad against the present applicant are hereby quashed and set aside. The applicant will produce certified copy of this order before the concerned learned Sessions Court and also before the investigating officer for necessary action. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(S.H.VORA, J) Hitesh Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 09 22:01:41 IST 2020