Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/562/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 562 of 2011
=========================================================
KEYUN
RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SP MAJMUDAR for
Applicant(s):1 MR PP MAJMUDAR for Applicant(s):1
MR KARTIK PANDYA
APP for Respondent(s) : 1
MR BK RAJ for Respondent(s) :
2
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 15/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocates for the parties.
2. In
this matter, on 10.03.2011, this Court (Coram: M.D. Shah, J.) passed
the following order:-
” Rule
returnable on 15.03.2011.
It is submitted by
Ms.C.M.Shah, learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of
respondent no.1 – State. It is submitted by Mr.Sunit Shah, learned
Advocate that he will file his Vakalatnama to appear on behalf of
respondent no.2. Mr.Sunit Shah, learned Advocate waives service of
rule on behalf of respondent no.2.”
3. Today,
the learned advocates for the respective parties have jointly
requested to dispose of the matter in view of two affidavits placed
on record affirmed by the original complainant which indicate that
the dispute is amicably settled between the parties. Learned counsel
Mr.B.K. Raj for the original complainant – respondent No.2 has
stated that the complainant has no objection if the complaint is
quashed, as it was filed in a circumstances where,
he was not otherwise go to file the complaint. The affidavit
is placed on record by the learned advocate for the
complainant-respondent No.2.
4. The
request of the learned counsel for quashing the complaint needs to be
considered in view of the fact that in case, if the complaint is not
quashed and is permitted to be taken to its logical end, then also,
in view of the facts and circumstances, it would rather be contrary
to the settled principles of law and would go against the interest of
all, including the society. The
peace and harmony which is now prevailing between the parties on
account of settlement to the dispute, if the complaint is permitted
to be proceeded to in its course, it would not entail the desired
result and would not serve end of justice in any manner. In
view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Nikhil
Merchant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. reported in
2009(1) GLH 31, I am of the view that though the offences are not
strictly compoundable but looking to the nature of dispute and the
averments of the complaint, it can safely be said that, in fact, the
dispute originally was that of the civil nature and the lodgment of
the complaint was indeed not called for.
5. In
view of this conclusion, I am of the view that the complaint impugned
in this proceedings is required to be quashed in the interest of
justice and is accordingly quashed. Rule is made absolute.
(S.R.
BRAHMBHATT, J.)
Hitesh
Top