Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/11044/2011 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11044 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 ?
======================================
RUCHITA
H DOSHI - Applicant
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance :
MR
APURVA A DAVE for the Applicant.
MR KP RAWAL, APP for Respondent
Nos.1 - 2.
MR AY KOGJE for Respondent
No.3.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 23/08/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
present application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant
herein – original accused – Ms.Ruchita H. Doshi to quash
and set aside the impugned complaint/FIR being C.R.No.I-122 of 2011
registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad against the
applicant for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. Today
when the present application is taken up for hearing, Mr.Apurva Dave,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant –
original accused has stated at the bar that subsequently the dispute
is already amicably settled between the applicant and the original
complainant and that total a sum of Rs.18 Lacs is already paid by
the applicant pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding entered
into between the Bharat Hotels Ltd. – original complainant and the
applicant – Ms.Ruchita Doshi.
3. Mr.A.Y.Kogje,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 –
original complainant has produced on record xerox copy of the
Memorandum of Understanding entered into between Bharat Hotels
Limited (original complainant) and the applicant herein, which is
directed to be taken on record. He has also confirmed payment of
Rs.18 Lacs paid to the original complainant – Bharat Hotels Limited
by the applicant. Therefore, he has submitted that he has no
objection, if the impugned complaint/FIR is quashed and set aside.
However, he has requested to delete allegations made against the
Company and its Officers in Para Nos.6 to 9 of the present petition.
Mr.Apurva Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
applicant, under the instructions from the applicant, has stated that
as the dispute is amicably settled between the parties whatever
allegations are made against the Company and/or its Officers in the
present petition more particularly in Para Nos.6 to 9 to the
petition, the applicant withdraw the same.
Mr.Apurva
Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has also
requested that election card of the applicant is lying with the
original complainant, which may be returned to the applicant.
Mr.A.Y.Kogje, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.3
– original complainant has stated that if the election card of
the applicant is with the original complainant, the same shall be
returned to the applicant.
4. 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.
5. Having
heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties
and considering the fact that the dispute between the original
complainant and the applicant has been amicably settled now and the
dispute prima facie seems to be private in nature and in view of the
Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the original
complainant and the applicant and entire amount i.e. Rs.18 Lacs has
already been paid by the applicant and considering the aforesaid
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, it appears to the Court that to continue proceedings
against the applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the parties
as now the original complainant is not likely to proceed further
with the case in view of the above settlement, this Court is of the
opinion that this is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the
impugned complaint/FIR so far as the present applicant is concerned.
6. In
view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the
petition succeeds. The impugned complaint/FIR being C.R.No.I-122 of
2011 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad against
the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the
Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
*dipti
Top