Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/559/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 559 of 2011
=========================================
DINESHBHAI
NARSINHBHAI VAGHELA & 3 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
PP MAJMUDAR for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 4.
MR LR POOJARI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR PRATIK Y JASANI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 03/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Mr.L.R.Poojari, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Mr. Pratik
Jasani, 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 / FIR registered as
C.R.No.I-12 of 2011 before “B’ Division Police Station,
Bhavnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, 504,
34 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities
Act.
3. It
is submitted by Mr.P.P.Majmudar, learned Advocate for applicants that
the dispute is settled between the parties and a compromise has been
arrived at between the parties. Affidavit of original complainant to
this effect is also placed on record. Therefore, it is submitted
that in view of settlement between the parties, complaint be quashed
and petition be allowed. Mr.Mamjudar, 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]
4. It
is submitted by Mr.Jasani, learned Advocate appearing for respondent
no.2 – original complainant that matter is settled and that the
complainant has no grievance against the present applicants. It is
also submitted by Mr.Jasani, that original complainant or any witness
will not claim compensation from the Government as offence is
registered under the provisions of Atrocities Act.
5. 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. 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.
7. In
the result, present application is allowed. The complaint / FIR
being C.R.No.I-12 of 2011 registered with “B’ Division Police
Station, Bhavnagar and the proceedings therein are required to be
quashed and are accordingly quashed. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Office is directed to
provide copy of this order to learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
[M.D.Shah,
J.]
satish
Top