Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/10957/2011 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10957 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
======================================
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 ?
======================================
C
VASHISHTH MURLIDHAR MISHRA - S R MANAGER & 8 - Applicants
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance :
MR
H A SHAH for the Applicants.
MR KP RAWAL, APP for Respondent
No.1.
MR KM SOJITRA for Respondent
No.2.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 24/08/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
Mr.K.P.Rawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of
notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1. Mr.Kamal Sojitra,
learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of
respondent No.2.
2. In
the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the
learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and
as it is reported that the parties have amicably settled the dispute,
the present application is taken up for final hearing today.
3. The
present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been preferred by the applicants – original
accused of FIR being C.R.No.I-92/2011 registered with Sanand Police
Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) lodged against the applicants –
original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 149, 395, 504, 506(2) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Mr.Sojitra,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 –
original complainant has submitted that an affidavit is also filed,
which is affirmed by respondent No.2 – original complainant
confirming that settlement has been arrived at between the parties
and by submitting that he has no objection, if the impugned
complaint/FIR is quashed and set aside.
5. Learned
advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have relied
upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan
Mohan Abbot V/s. State of Punjab reported in 2008(4) SCC 582;
in the case of Nikhil Merchant V/s. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another reported in 2009(1) GLH 31 as
well as in the case of Manoj Sharma V/s. State and others reported
in 2009(1) GLH 190.
6. Having
heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective
parties and considering the fact that settlement has been arrived at
between the parties and considering the aforesaid decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, it appears to the Court that the impugned FIR
be quashed and set aside in exercise of power under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and to continue criminal proceedings
against the applicants – original accused is unnecessary
harassment to the applicants and the same shall not be in the
interest of the parties.
7. In
view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the
impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-92/2011 registered with Sanand Police
Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) lodged against the applicants –
original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 149, 395, 504, 506(2) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby
quashed and set aside so far as the applicants are concerned. Rule is
made absolute accordingly.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
*dipti
Top