R/CR.MA/23210/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/02/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 23210 of 2023
==========================================================
RITU PRITAM ARORA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN V PATEL(8059) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ASMITA PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 29/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] Learned advocate Mr. Chirag Shrimali states that he has
instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and
seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted. Heard
learned advocates for the respective parties.
[2.0] RULE. Learned advocates waive service of note of rule on
behalf of the respective respondents.
[3.0] Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both
the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved
amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
[4.0] By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), the
Page 1 of 5
R/CR.MA/23210/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/02/2024
petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR
No.11196003230543 of 2023 registered with Manjalpur Police
Station, Vadodara City for the offences punisable under
Sections 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to
quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
[5.0] 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 original complainant has also filed an Affidavit
dated 18.12.2023 which is taken on record. In the Affidavit, the
original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute
with the petitioner has been resolved amicably and that he has
no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set
aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.
[6.0] Going through the impugned FIR it appears that same has
been filed by respondent No.2 who is husband of the petitioner
wherein it is alleged that the accused wife used to abuse the
complainant from her maternal home and threatened to file false
cases against him. In this regard FIR came to be filed.
[7.0] It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by
the High Court under section 482 of the CrPC is warranted. It is
true that the powers under Section 482 of the Code 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
Page 2 of 5
R/CR.MA/23210/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/02/2024
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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava,
IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.
[8.0] Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the
principle 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) Manoj
Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v)
Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in
2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) as also considering the fact that
impugned FIR is filed in connection with matrimonial dispute
between husband and wife pursuant to which they have
separated and taken divorce and therefore, complainant has filed
Page 3 of 5
R/CR.MA/23210/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/02/2024
an affidavit of settlement which is annexed with the petition as
Annexure-B and he affirms the fact of settlement and hence, in
the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal
proceedings against the present petitioner in relation to the
impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the
petitioner. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the
mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a
futile exercise. 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 under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..
[8.1] Further, insofar as present petitioner is concerned,
allegations of offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506(2)
of the IPC are also made. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Mohammad Wajid and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.
reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624: 2023 INSC 683, has held in
paragraphs 15, 27 and 28 as follows:
“Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - Mere abuse, discourtesy,
rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult
within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the
necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to
commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other
element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted
to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person
insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of
abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the
facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a
general proposition that no one commits an offence under
Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the
complainant - In judging whether particular abusive language is
attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in
the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive
Page 4 of 5
R/CR.MA/23210/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/02/2024
language used and not what the complainant actually did as a
result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense
of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive
language that is the test for considering whether the abusive
language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person
insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular
conduct or temperament of the complainant. (Para 25- 26)
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - One of the essential
elements for constituting an offence under Section 504 of the
IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting
to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive
words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to
decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional
insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide
whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present. (Para 28)
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 - Before an offence of
criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the
accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.
(Para 27) 3 Interpretation of Statutes- All penal statutes are to
be construed strictly - Court must see that the thing charged is
an offence within the plain meaning of the words used and must
not strain the words. (Para 19- 21)”
[9.0] In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being
CR No.11196003230543 of 2023 registered with Manjalpur
Police Station, Vadodara City as well as all consequential
proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed
and set aside qua the petitioner herein. If the petitioner are in
jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the
petitioner forthwith, if not required in connection with any other
case. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. Direct
service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
Page 5 of 5