Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2813/2011 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2813 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD 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 ?
=========================================================
MAHENDRAKUMAR
MANILAL PATEL & 2 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KJ PANCHAL for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 3.
MR LR PUJARI, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
SUNIL S JOSHI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 06/05/2011
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
Mr.L.R.Pujari, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Mr. Sunil Joshi,
learned advocate waive service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1
– State and 2 respectively.
2. The
present application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
has been filed for quashing of complaint registered as M Case No.07
of 2005 with Sarkhej Police Station as well as private complaint
being Criminal Inquiry Case No.108 of 2005 dated 29.7.2005 pending
before 1st Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Ahmedabad Rural alongwith the orders passed thereon and
further proceedings in pursuance to the said case for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of
Indian Penal Code.
3. Mr.Panchal
submitted that respondent No.2 – original complainant –
Nathiben Patel is real aunt of the applicants and the applicants are
the real nephews of the respondent No.2 – original complainant
and because of intervention of several family members and mediators,
amicable settlement has taken place between respondent No.2 –
original complainant and present applicants. It is further submitted
that various Civil Suits and RTS proceedings were also pending before
the competent Court, wherein consent decree has been passed in
pursuance of the consent terms arrived at before this Court in First
Appeal No.3265 of 2010. The consent terms arrived at between the
parties is placed on record at Annexure-B.
4. The
respondent No.2 – Nathiben is 90 years old lady. She is
identified by learned advocate Shri Sunil Joshi. She submitted before
this Court that she voluntarily entered into settlement and matter is
amicably settled and she also requested to quashed the complaint and
criminal proceedings. Therefore, it is submitted that in view of
settlement between the parties, complaint be quashed and petition be
allowed. Mr.Panchal, has relied upon following decisions in support
of his submissions: –
(1) Nikhil Merchant
v/s. CBI and Anr. [2009 (1) GLH 31]
(2) Jagdish Chananan &
Ors. v/s. State of Haryana & Anr. [2008 (2) GLH 53]
(3) Manoj Sharma v/s.
State [JT 2008 (11) SC 674]
5. It
is submitted by Mr.Joshi, learned Advocate appearing for respondent
no.2 – original complainant that matter is settled and that the
complainant has no grievance against the present applicants.
6. 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.”
7. Considering
aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and settlement
arrived between the parties, in opinion of this Court, no useful
purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings
and it will be harassment to the parties. Hence, a case is made out
to exercise powers under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.
8. In
the result, present application is allowed. The complaint registered
as M Case No.07 of 2005 with Sarkhej Police Station as well as
private complaint being Criminal Inquiry Case No.108 of 2005 dated
29.7.2005 pending before 1st Additional Civil Judge and
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad Rural alongwith the orders
passed thereon and further proceedings in pursuance to the said case
for the offences are required to be quashed and are accordingly
quashed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
[M.D.Shah,
J.]
kks
Top