Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/5412/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5412 of 2011
=========================================================
MUSTAQALI
PIRBAX MIRZA & 3 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SALIM M SAIYED for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 4.
MR LR PUJARI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR SOEB R BHOHARIA for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 10/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Pujari and learned advocate
Mr.Soeb Bhoharia waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively.
The
present application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
has been filed for quashing of FIR registered as C.R.No.I – 305 of
2010 before Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences
punishable under Secs.394, 452 and 114 of IPC in pursuance of
complaint filed by the respondent No.2-complainant.
Heard
learned advocate, Mr.Saiyed for the petitioner, learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent No.1 and learned
advocate, Mr.Soeb Bhoharia for the respondent No.2.
It
is jointly submitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that the
matter is settled between the parties and a compromise has been
arrived at between the parties and the terms of settlement is also
placed on the record of the case. It is submitted by learned
advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is on bail. The
complainant is also present before this Court, who is identified by
learned advocate Mr.Soeb Bhoharia for the complainant. It is further
submitted that all injured witnesses are also present and they are
identified by original complainant. It is further submitted that
now the complainant has no grievance against the petitioner.
The
Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab
reported in (2008)4 Supreme Court Cases page 582 has
observed as under in paras 5 and
7 of the judgment:
“5. It
is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in
the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed
by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the
other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one
between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive
business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no
public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against
the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful
purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the
light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the
complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the
possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out.”
“7.
We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a
compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The
outer limit of Rs.250/- which has led to the dismissal of the
application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We
accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case,
direct that FIR No.155 dated 17th November 2001 P.S. Kotwali,
Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to
be quashed.”
6.
Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court to
the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that this Cri.
Misc. Application is required to be allowed and the parties be
permitted to compound the offence.
7.
In the result, this Cri. Misc. Application is allowed. The
complaint being C.R.No.I – 305 of 2010 registered before
Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad and the proceedings therein are
required to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. Rule is made
absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(M.D.Shah,J.)
syed/
Top