Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/2011/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2011 of 2010
=========================================================
ARVINDBHAI
DAHYABHAI PRAJAPATI & 12 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HR PRAJAPATI for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 13.
MS
CM SHAH, APP
for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR
CR MISHRA for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 11/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate, Mr.H.R.Prajapati for the petitioners, learned APP,
Ms.C.M.Shah for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate,
Mr.C.R.Mishra for the respondent No.3.
Rule.
Learned APP, Ms.C.M.Shah for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned
advocate, Mr.C.R.Mishra for the respondent No.3 waive service of
notice of rule.
The
complaint in question has been lodged by the respondent No.3 for the
offences punishable under Secs.406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471,
114 and 120B of IPC registered as C.R.No.I-529 of 2009 with Sector 7
Police Station against the petitioners.
The
learned advocates for the respective parties have jointly submitted
that the matter is settled between the parties and a compromise has
been arrived at between the complainant and the petitioners and in
view of the same, suit has been withdrawn by the plaintiffs. The
complainant is identified by learned advocate, Mr.Mishra for the
respondent No.3. It is stated that the matter is settled between the
parties as they are close relatives and hence, it is requested that
the complaint may be quashed.
It
is clear that the parties, who are nearest relatives, have settled
the matter and as per the compromise, suit has been withdrawn. 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.”
Reliance
is placed on another decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR
2005 SUPREME COURT 757 in the case of Mohd. Shamim v.
Nahid Begum wherein it has been held by the Apex Court in
paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 15 as under:
“12.
In view of the fact that the settlement was arrived at the
intervention of a judicial officer of the rank of the Additional
Sessions Judge, we are of the opinion, the contention of the First
Respondent herein to the effect that she was not aware of the
contents thereof and the said agreement as also the affidavit which
were got signed by her by misrepresentation of facts must be
rejected. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we have no
doubt in our mind that the denial of execution of the said deed of
settlement is an afterthought on the part of the Respondent No.1
herein.
13.
Ex facie the settlement between the parties appears to be genuine. If
the contention of the First Respondent herein is to be accepted, she
would not have accepted the sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- and in any event,
she could have filed an appropriate application in that behalf before
the Court of S.N. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. What was
least expected of her was that she would return the said sum of
Rupees 2,25,000/- to the Appellants herein.
15.
This Court in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others (2004
(8) Supreme 525), in almost a similar situation has quashed a
criminal proceeding against the husband, stating:
“…
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received
the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of
the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned
counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the
appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this
appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.
8.
In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the
appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the
criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to
continue..””
Applying
the above ratio to the facts of the present case, since the matter
has been settled between the parties, I am of the opinion that no
useful purpose would be served by permitting the criminal
proceedings pending against the accused to continue. Hence, the
complaint in question is required to be quashed.
In
view of the above, Fir being C.R.N o.I-529 of 2009 with Sector 7
Police Station is quashed. This petition is accordingly allowed.
Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(M.D.SHAH,J.)
radhan
Top