 Act, 2021 (state's 'anti-love jihad' law), after Advocates for the Applicants and the Complainant submitted that during the pendency of petition, the matter was amicably settled among the parties){kind=link}
The Gujarat High Court quashed the FIR registered under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021 (state’s ‘anti-love jihad’ law), after Advocates for the Applicants and the Complainant submitted that during the pendency of petition, the matter was amicably settled among the parties.
A Single Bench of Justice Niral R. Mehta allowed the application seeking quashing and setting aside F.I.R. registered with Gotri Police Station, Vadodara city for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 376(2) (n), 377, 312, 313, 504, 506(2), 323, 419 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 4(A), 4(2)(A), 4(2)(B) and 5 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5-a), 3(1)(w)(1)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Advocated for the Applicants and Complainant submitted that during the pendency of petition, the matter is amicably settled amongst the parties and therefore, any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would create hardship to the parties and further continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
The complainant (the alleged Victim) is personally present before the High Court and is identified by her advocate. Advocate for the complainant confirmed about the settlement having been taken place and also confirmed the affidavit filed by the complainant. The said affidavit stated the fact that the matter is amicably settled between the parties.
Considering the fact that the applicant No.1 and the complainant are the husband and wife respectively and rest of the applicants are the relatives of the applicant No.1, however, because of the matrimonial disputes, the impugned F.I.R. came to be lodged, but, later on, with the mediation of the respective members of the family, an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties and they are residing together. In that view of the matter, the further continuation of the criminal proceedings would jeopardize their future, and thus, the High Court is inclined to accept the settlement , observed the Bench.
Having heard the counsel for the parties and considering the facts of settlement and law laid down by the Apex Court [Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC)], the High Court is of the considered view that further continuation of the criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR would nothing but unnecessary harassment to the parties and trial thereon would be futile and further continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. Thus, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside by the High Court in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code.