Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2181/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2181 of 2010
with
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2930 of 2010
======================================
DHARMISHTABA
@ DHARMISHTHABA HARISHCHANDRA JADEJA
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & another
======================================
Appearance :
MR
TUSHAR L SHETH for Applicant
Mr.
Shivang Shukla, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1
Mr.
Hardik Brahmbhatt for respondent
No.2
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 05/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1 A
prayer to quash complaint being C.R. No.359 of 2009 registered at
Rajkot Taluka Police Station qua the applicant [original accused
No.1] for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 114
of the Indian Penal Code, is made by Mr. Tushar L. Sheth, learned
counsel for the applicant, on the ground that, so far as accused No.1
is concerned, the applicant [original accused No.1] and the
original complainant [respondent No.2 herein] have arrived at a
settlement to the effect that, if the impugned complaint is quashed
by this Court, the complainant has no objection.
2 Mr.
Hardik Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for respondent No.2, submits that
the affidavit dated14.3.2010 is made by respondent No.2 on oath and
is produced on record.
3 It
is jointly submitted that even the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Rajkot, has passed compromise decree dated 15.3.2010 in Special Civil
Suit No.14 of 2010 declaring that the power of attorney dated
8.5.2009 and the sale deed No.3112 dated 27.5.2009 as null and void.
4 Considering
the above, namely, compromise arrived at between the applicant and
the complainant, affidavit filed by the complainant, decree passed by
the Civil Court declaring the power of attorney and the sale deed
as null and void, in my opinion, the impugned complaint qua the
applicant deserves to be quashed to meet the ends of justice in as
much as allowing the proceedings to continue further would amount to
undue hardship and mental agony to the parties.
5 Affidavit
dated14.3.2010 filed by respondent No.2 is ordered to be taken on
record.
6 In
the result, this application is allowed. Complaint being C.R. No.359
of 2009 registered at Rajkot Taluka Police Station qua the applicant
[original accused No.1] for the offences under Sections 465, 467,
468, 471, 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed qua the
applicant.
7. In
view of the above, Misc. Criminal Application No.2930 of 2010 does
not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
(ANANT
S. DAVE, J.)
(swamy)
Top