Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/9693/2011 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9693 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA : Sd/-
=======================================================
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 ?
=======================================================
KANUBHAI
RAVJIBHAI AMIN & 2 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=======================================================
Appearance :
MR
ARPIT P PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1 - 3.
MR HL JANI APP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR NA BRAHMBHATT for Respondent(s) :
2,
=======================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 30/09/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Rule.
Learned A.P.P., Mr.H.L. Jani for the respondent no.1-State of
Gujarat and learned counsel, Mr.N.A. Brahmbhatt
for the respondent no.2-original complainant waive service of notice
of rule.
The
present application has been filed by the applicants under Section
482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 for the prayer that the Complaint/Inquiry
No.22/2011 filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Vadodara, which has been registered as M.Case No.1/2011 with
Chhani Police Station may be quashed and set aside on the grounds
stated in the application.
Heard
learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
Learned
counsel, Mr.Arpit Patel has referred to the papers including the
writing arrived at recording the settlement between the parties,
which is produced at Annexure-C and submitted that the parties have
amicably resolved the dispute with regard to use of excess land in
question and, therefore, the present petition may be allowed.
Learned
counsel, Mr.Brahmbhatt appearing for the respondent no.2-original
complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR may be quashed.
Therefore,
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
present application deserves to be allowed.
A
useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Madan Mohan Abbot V/s State of Punjab
reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, wherein it has been
specifically observed in para No.6 as under :-
We
need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes
where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the
Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in
criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility
of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the
Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the
time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and
meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter
based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the
law.
In
the circumstances, the present application stands allowed. The the
Complaint/Inquiry No.22/2011 filed before the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara, which has been registered as
M.Case No.1/2011 with Chhani Police Station is hereby quashed and
set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(RAJESH
H.SHUKLA, J.)
/patil
Top