Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/5532/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5532 of 2011
=========================================================
KALPESH
D SHAH - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KB ANANDJIWALA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
Mr.L.R.Pujari, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
YH MOTIRAMANI FOR MR MR BIJU A NAIR for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 02/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. 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.10 of 2007
before DCB Police Station, Vadodara, for the offences punishable
under Sections 409, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC in pursuance of
complaint filed by the respondent No.2-complainant.
2. Heard
learned advocate, Mr. Anandjiwala for the petitioner, learned APP
Mr. Pujari for the respondent No.1 and Mr.Motiramani for the
respondent no.2.
3. The
ori. complainant – Bank of Baroda has filed its
affidavit-in-reply, wherein it is specifically stated that the firm –
Apurva Aluminium Corporation has already paid its entire due amount.
It is specifically mentioned in para-7 of the affidavit-in-reply
filed by respondent No.2 that as on date firm – Apurva Aluminium
Corporation, its partners and guarantors have no amount due and
payable towards the respondent Bank. It is also stated in the
affidavit-in-reply that this Court may pass appropriate order as deem
fit and proper in best interest of justice.
4. The
respondent No.2 – Chief Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, lodged
complaint against present petitioners for the offences punishable
under Sections 409, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC. From the plain reading
of the complaint, there is no allegation of creating forged documents
or forged signature in the documents. As the present petitioner could
not pay amount towards loan, this complaint is filed.
5. It
is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that no
amount is due and payable towards the respondent bank – Bank of
Baroda and now respondent No.2 – original complainant has no
grievance against the present petitioner and requests to quash the
complaint.
6. In
view of above, to continue criminal proceedings would amount to
harassment to the petitioner as they have already paid the amount to
respondent No.2 Bank. The respondent No.2 – Bank of Baroda has
no grievance against the present petitioner.
7. 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.”
8. 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 Criminal
Miscellaneous Application is required to be allowed and the parties
be permitted to compound the offence.
9. In
the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application is allowed. The
complaint being I.C.R.No.10 of 2007 registered before DCB Police
Station, Vadodara, 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 )
srilatha
Top