Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/6525/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6525 of 2011
=========================================
PARBAT
@ PABA HAMIR RABARI & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
HARESH N JOSHI for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR LR POOJARI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 11/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. It
is submitted by Mr.H.M.Prachak, learned Advocate that he has
instructions to appear for respondent no.2 – original
complainant. Rule. Mr.L.R.Poojari, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr.H.M.Prachak, 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-44 of 2011 before Vanthali Police Station, District Junagadh
for the offences punishable under Sections 386 and 34 of Indian
Penal Code.
3. It
is jointly submitted by the learned Advocates for the parties that
the dispute is settled between the parties and a compromise has been
arrived at between the parties. Complainant is present before the
Court and he is identified by the learned Advocate. It is submitted
by complainant that the matter is settled between the parties and he
has no grievance against present applicant. Affidavit of complainant
to this effect is also placed on record. It is further submitted by
complainant to quash the complaint.
4. It
is submitted by learned APP that he has verified the settlement terms
and it is requested to pass appropriate order.
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 decision 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. FIR being C.R.No.I-44 of
2011 registered with Vanthali Police Station, District Junagadh 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.
[M.D.Shah,
J.]
satish
Top