Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/5814/2008 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5814 of 2008
==========================================
SHAH
HALCHAND BADARMAL & ORS
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & ANR
==========================================
Appearance :
MR
DIPEN K DAVE for Applicants:1-4
MR KP RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent:1
MR LAXMANSINH M ZALA for
Respondent:2
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 30/06/2008
ORAL ORDER
The
facts of the case stated briefly are that the Pragati Co-operative
Bank Limited (respondent No.2 herein) had lodged a First Information
Report before the Kalupur Police Station vide I C.R. No. 209/04
alleging that the petitioners had produced false and fabricated
documents for availing of a loan of Rs.7.5 lacs from the Bank and
had not repaid the outstanding amount of Rs.17,32,199.15 due and
payable to the Bank and thereby committed the offence punishable
under sections 406, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code. Upon culmination of the investigation, charge sheet was filed
by the Investigating Officer and the proceedings are pending before
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.16, Ahmedabad vide
Criminal Case No.1238 of 2005. According to the petitioners, they
have repaid the entire amount due and payable to the respondent No.2
Bank, pursuant to which, the Bank has issued a no due certificate on
23rd July, 2007, which is annexed as Annexure C to the
petition. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the
settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the complainant
Bank, the complainant and other officers of the Bank are no longer
interested in the compliant and therefore, do not attend the
proceedings before the learned Magistrate. That in the
circumstances, the petitioners are required to attend the Court on
all dates when the matter is fixed. However, in absence of the
officers of the respondent Bank, the case is not proceeding any
further. It is submitted that in the circumstances, when the Bank is
no longer interested in pursuing the complaint, the First
Information Report in question deserves to be quashed.
Mr.
Dipen K. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted
that in view of the fact that the petitioners have paid all the dues
of the Bank, the grievance of the respondent No.2 ? original
complainant no longer survives, hence the complainant is no longer
interested in pursuing the matter any further, due to which, the
proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are
unnecessarily dragged on. It is submitted that in the circumstances,
when the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the
complaint any further, continuation of the proceedings against the
present petitioners is an abuse of the process of Court.
In
response to the issuance of Rule in the matter, the respondent No.2
Bank has filed appearance through learned advocate Mr. L.M. Zala.
The learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has reiterated the
submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioners. He
has submitted that as the dues of the Bank are fully repaid, the
Bank is no longer interested in pursuing the complaint any further
and has no objection if the complaint in question is quashed.
This
Court in the case of Rajeshbhai
Natwarlal Agrawal and Ors. v. State of Gujarat
(2005) 3 GLH 504 has, after considering various decisions on the
issue, held that it would not be just and proper nor it would be in
the interest of justice to compel the parties to face trial despite
there being settlement. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the
case of Inderjitsinh v. State of U.T.,
Chandigarh & Anr. III
(2006) CCR 24 has held that continuation of proceedings will be an
exercise in futility where the parties have amicably settled the
dispute and have compromised the matter.
Considering
the facts of the present case in the light of the decisions cited
hereinabove, the parties to the dispute have settled the matter
between them. Evidently, the Bank is no longer interested in
pursuing the complaint any further, which has resulted into the
petitioners being put to undue harassment, as on behalf of the
complainant, nobody remains present before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate. In the circumstances, the ends of justice would best be
served if the complaint in question is quashed. This is therefore, a
fit case for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code, with
a view to prevent the abuse of the process of Court.
For
the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is accordingly
allowed. The First Information Report being Kalupur Police Station I
C.R. No. 209/04 as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1238
of 2005 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court
No.16, Ahmedabad, are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct
Service is permitted.
(HARSHA
DEVANI, J.)
Amit/-
Top