Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/3898/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 3898 of 2011
=========================================================
NARESH
RAMJIBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DIPEN K DAVE for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MS
CM SHAH, APP
for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR LAXMANSINH M ZALA for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 05/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate, Mr.Dipen K.Dave for the petitioners, learned APP,
Ms.C.M.Shah for the respondent No.1-State and learned
advocate,Mr.L.M.Zala for the respondent No.2.
Rule.
Learned APP, Ms.C.M.Shah for the respondent No.1-State and learned
advocate,Mr.L.M.Zala for the respondent No.2 waive service of rule.
It
is submitted by learned advocates for the parties that the matter is
settled between the parties. Learned advocate, Mr.L.M.Zala, who is
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2-original complainant has
submitted that settlement took place between the complainant and
the accused. The respondent No.2, who is personally present in
Court, has been identified by the learned advocate, Mr.L.M.Zala. He
has submitted that the matter is settled between the parties and no
he has no grievance against the present petitioner and hence,
requested the Court to quash the complaint.
It
appears that the complaint was lodged by one Hitendrasinh Zala
against the petitioner and another for the offences punishable under
Secs.406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC registered as
C.R.No.I-17 of 2011 before Sanand Police Station alleging inter alia
that although he purchased the agricultural land from the petitioner
No.2 before three years, certificate of he being a farmer could not
be produced by him and therefore, entry could not be mutated in his
favour. Taking advantage of this, said land was again sold to
another person. For taking possession of the land in question,
scuffle took place between the petitioner’s security and respondent
No.2. Hence, the complaint in question was filed by the respondent
No.2 for the offences punishable under Secs.143,147, 148, 149,
506(2) of IPC and Sec.25(1)(B)(a) of Arms Act. It is to be noted
that there was no allegation that by forging the signature,
documents were created. It is alleged that even though the suit land
was previously sold by a registered sale deed, second sale deed was
executed by the petitioner in favour of another person. When first
sale deed was executed, purchaser of the suit was not a farmer and
therefore, his name could not be mutated in the revenue record and
thereupon the accused executed second sale deed in favour of the
farmer.
Settlement
pursis is also placed on record. As per the settlement terms, both
the parties have acted upon. They have informed the Investigating
Officer also.
Reliance
is placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
“Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. and Anr.” reported in AIR
2009 SUPREME COURT 428 wherein it has been held in para 24 as under:
“24.
On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping
in mind the decision of this Court in B. S. Joshi’s case (supra) and
the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also
clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank,
we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should
not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal
proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after
the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile
exercise.”
Applying
the above ratio to the facts of the present case, as compromise has
been arrived at between the parties and as the complainant does not
have any objection in quashing the complaint, I am of the opinion
that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the criminal
proceedings pending against the petitioners to continue. Hence, the
complaint in question is required to be quashed.
It
is pertinent to note that another criminal complaint being
C.R.No.I-17 of 2011 registered before Sanand Police Station
qua the petitioner and other person are quashed
by this Court vide order passed today in Cri.Misc.Appln.No.3896 of
2011. Hence also, present complaint is required to be quashed.
In
view of the above, criminal complaint being C.R.No.I-40 of
2011 before Sanand Police Station and
the proceedings thereunder are quashed. This Cri. Misc. Application
is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is
permitted.
(M.D.SHAH,J.)
radhan
Top