Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4961/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4961 of 2011
=========================================
PRATAPBHAI
ANKUBHAI KHACHAR - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
NANAVATY
ADVOCATES for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR LR POOJARI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 10/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. It
is submitted by Mr.Jaisingh Jadeja, learned Advocate that he has
instructions to appear for respondent no.2. Rule.
Mr.L.R.Poojari, learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of
respondent nos.1 – State and 3 and Mr.Jaisingh Jadeja, learned
Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no.2.
2. Present
application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been
filed for quashing of complaint / FIR registered as C.R.No.I-15 of
2011 before Paliyad Police Station, District – Bhavnagar for
the offences punishable under Sections 323,504, 452, 506(2) of Indian
Penal Code.
3. It
is submitted by Mr.N.D.Nanavaty, learned Senior Advocate for the
applicant that matter is settled between the parties and therefore,
requested to allow the present petition. Parties are personally
present in the Court. Settlement terms is also placed on record.
Complainant is present before the Court and it is submitted that
matter is settled and he has no grievance against the present
applicant. Therefore, it is requested to quash the complaint.
4. Learned
Advocate for the applicant has relied upon following decisions in
support of his submission :-
(i) Rajeshbhai
Natvarlal Agarwal v/s. State of Gujarat [2005 (3) GLH 504]
(ii) Jagdish
Chanana & Ors. v/s. State of Haryana [AIR 2008 SC 1968]
(iii) Madan
Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab [AIR 2008 SC 1969]
5. The
Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab
(supra) has observed as under
in paras 5 and 7 of the judgment:
“5. It
is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in
the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed
by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the
other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one
between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive
business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no
public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against
the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful
purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the
light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the
complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the
possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out.”
“7.
We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a
compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The
outer limit of Rs.250/- which has led to the dismissal of the
application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We
accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case,
direct that FIR No.155 dated 17th November 2001 P.S. Kotwali,
Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to
be quashed.”
6. Considering
aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and settlement
arrived between the parties, in opinion of this Court, no useful
purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings
and it will be harassment to the parties. Hence, a case is made out
to exercise powers under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.
7. In
the result, present application is allowed. The FIR being
C.R.No.I-15 of 2011 registered with Paliyad Police Station, District
Bhavnagar and the proceedings therein are required to be quashed and
are accordingly quashed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Direct service is permitted.
[M.D.Shah,
J.]
satish
Top