Gujarat High Court High Court

Parasmal vs State on 21 September, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Parasmal vs State on 21 September, 2011
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/13237/2011	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 13237 of 2011
 

 
 
=========================================
 

PARASMAL
KESARIMAL JAIN - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

========================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR HARDIK A DAVE for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR KP RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR DK PUJ for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/09/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Rule.

Learned APP Mr. KP Raval waives service of rule for respondent No.
1-State and learned advocate Mr. DK Puj waives service of notice for
respondent No. 2.

2. The
present application has been field under sec. 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code for the prayer that FIR being C.R. No. I-34/2001
registered at Salabatpura police Station may be quashed and set
aside.

3. Heard
learned advocate Mr. Hardik Dave for the applicant, learned APP Mr.
Raval for respondent No. 1-State as well as learned advocate Mr. DK
Puj for respondent No.2 original complainant.

4. Learned
advocate Mr. Dave referred to the papers and submitted that the
complaint was filed with regard to the outstanding amount for the
goods supplied in a commercial transaction. Learned advocate Mr.
Dave submitted that the matter has been settled for which an
affidavit has been produced on record recording the
compromise/settlement having been arrived at. Learned advocate Mr.
Puj appears for respondent No.2 original complainant and confirms the
same. Therefore, leaned advocate Mr Dave has stated that in view of
the judgment of the Honorable Apex Court reported in (2008) 15 SCC
704 in the case of Jagdish Chanana and ors. v. State of Haryana
and
anr., the present application may be allowed.

5. As
it transpires from the record, the dispute is with regard to a
commercial transaction regarding outstanding dues and the parties
have amicably settled their dispute for which a writing is executed
and the affidavits have been filed. Respondent No.2 complainant is
present in the court through his lawyer learned advocate Mr. DK Puj
and he has confirmed about having settled the matter. Therefore, in
view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid judgment in the case of Jagdish Chanana (supra) as
well as the judgment in the case of Madan
Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab,

reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in para in para 6 as
under, the present petition deserves to be allowed.

“We
need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes
where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the
Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in
criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility
of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the
Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the
time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and
meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter
based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the
law.”

6. Therefore,
as the dispute is of a private nature and the parties have amicably
settled the same, the FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in
light of the compromise/settlement which has been arrived at and in
view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court laying down
guidelines with regard to the approach. It has been specifically
observed that the approach of the court should be pragmatic and time
should be utilised for deciding effective and meaningful litigation.
Therefore, when there are no chances and when the complainant has
no objection having settled with the accused, the prayer deserves to
be granted.

7. In
the circumstances, the present application stands allowed. Prayer in
terms of para 9b is granted. The FIR begin C.R. No. I-34/2011
registered at Salabatpura Police Station is hereby quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. DS permitted.

(Rajesh
H. Shukla, J.)

(hn)

   

Top