Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/14197/2005 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 14197 of 2005
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
=================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=================================================
VANAJA
TEXTILES LTD., THRO' N.MARUTHACHALAM, - Applicant
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondents
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
ASHISH M DAGLI for Applicant:
MR. KARTIK PANDYA, LD. APP for
Respondent : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent : 2,
MR RC KAKKAD
for Respondent : 2,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 23/02/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Heard
learned advocate for the parties.
Learned
advocate appearing for the original complainant has sought
permission of this Court for placing on record the communication
received by him from the said complainant, namely Dineshkumar
Karsandas Gandecha that the dispute is amicably settled and he is
not desirous of prosecuting further the criminal case No. 307/2005,
and in view of this, if the Criminal Misc. Application No. 14197 of
2005 is allowed he shall have no objection, meaning thereby the
complaint be quashed.
The
original complaint came to be filed by original complainant /
respondent no.2 herein being Criminal Case No. 307/2005 alleging
that the accused therein have committed offence punishable under
section 406, 420 read with section 114 of I.P. Code. The entire
tenor of the complaint also go to show that it was essentially a
civil dispute which was sought to be made subject matter of
complaint. Though the Court needs to be mindful of the fact that
under provision of Section 420 the complainant does not have sole
discretion to withdraw or not to press the complaint. However in
view of the Apex Court decision in case of NIKHIL MERCHANT Vs.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER, reported in 2009 (1)
G.L.H. 31, that the complaint even if it is permitted to be brought
to its logical end, then it is not likely to serve interest of
justice, rather it is going to be counter productive, in as much as,
the peace arrived at by the parties will get disturbed thereby.
Hence quashing is required to be ordered. Accordingly the complaint
being Criminal Case No. 307/2005 is hereby quashed. Petition is
allowed. Rule made absolute.
/vgn
[ S.R.
BRAHMBHATT, J ]
Top