Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/3346/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 3346 of 2011
=========================================================
DINESH
KHIMJI MALAVIYA & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ASHISH M DAGLI for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR LR PUJARI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR AB MUNSHI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 06/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Pujari and learned advocate,
Mr.A.B.Munshi, 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 I.C.R.No.15 of 2011
before Athwa Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under
Secs.420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506(2), 120-B and 114 of IPC in
pursuance of complaint filed by the respondent No.2-complainant.
Heard
learned advocate, Mr.Ashish Dagli for the petitioners, learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent No.1 and
learned advocate, Mr.A.B.Munshi, 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 the terms of settlement is
also placed on record which is ordered to be taken on record.
Learned APP Mr.Pujari has also verified from the Investigating
Officer and submitted that appropriate order may be passed.
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 I.C.R.No. 15 of 2011 registered before Athwa Police
Station, Surat 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