Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/6063/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6063 of 2011
=========================================
JAGDISHBHAI
@ JAGO S/O SARMANBHAI KAMBALIYA & 3 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
CHINTAN S POPAT for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 4.
MR LR POOJARI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 04/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Mr.L.R.Poojari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr.Harnish
Darji, learned advocate waive service of rule on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 – State and 2 respectively.
2. The
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-276 of 2010 before Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad for the
offences punishable under Sections 365, 323 and 114 of Indian Penal
Code.
3. Heard
Mr.Chintan Popat, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr.L.R.Poojari,
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 –
State and Mr.Harnish Darji, learned advocate for the respondent No.2.
It is submitted by Mr.Popat, learned Advocate for the applicant
that the matter is settled between the parties. It is submitted by
Mr.Darji, learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 – original
complainant that in reference to business transaction and because of
some misunderstanding, complaint was lodged by the original
complainant. Now the matter is settled and the original complainant
has no grievance against the applicant. Original complainant is
present before the Court and he has also admitted that the matter is
settled between the parties and at present also there is business
transaction between the accused and original complainant. It is also
submitted by original complainant that settlement is not under any
duress and requested to quash the complaint. Affidavit of the
original complainant is also produced on record.
4. The
Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab
reported in (2008)4 Supreme Court Cases page 582 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.”
5. 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.
6. In
the result, present application is allowed. The complaint /FIR
being C.R.No.I-276 of 2010 registered with Vatva Police Station,
Ahmedabad 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