Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/641/2010 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 641 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
KHATRI
SURENDRAKUMAR KANTILAL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PRATIK B BAROT for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR LR PUJARI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR
ANIP A GANDHI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 23/06/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Rule.
Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Pujari and learned advocate,
Mr.Anip Gandhi, waive service 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 and setting aside the impugned judgment
and order dated 7.12.2010 passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2009 and order dated
29.7.2009 passed by the learned JMFC, Mehsana below Exh.3 in
Criminal Case No.5635 of 2006.
Heard
learned advocate, Mr.Pratik Barot for the petitioner, learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent No.1 and
learned advocate, Mr.Gandhi for the respondent No.2.
It
is jointly submitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that the
matter is settled between the parties as per the settlement terms.
It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Barot for the petitioner that
the petitioner has deposited entire cheque amount as well as
Rs.10,000/- towards cost also to the complainant. Learned advocate
Mr.Gandhi for the respondent No.2 – complainant submitted that
the complainant has no objection if the permission be granted to
compound the offences.
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
Criminal Revision Application is required to be allowed and the
parties be permitted to compound the offence.
7.
In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned judgment
and order dated 7.12.2010 passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2009 and the order dated
29.7.2009 passed by the learned JMFC, Mehsana below Exh.3 in
Criminal Case No.5635 of 2006 are hereby quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.
(M.D.SHAH, J.)
syed/
Top