Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/800020/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8000 of 2008
with
CRIMINAL
MISC. APPLIATION NO.8361 OF 2008
==========================================
RAJESH
MOHANBHAI PATEL & 8 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
AJ SHASTRI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 9.
MR MR
MENGDEY, ADD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR VM
PANCHOLI for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR BHARAT J JOSHI for
Respondent(s) : 2,
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 06/08/2009
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Mr.M.R.Mengdey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 State of
Gujarat. Mr.V.M.Pancholi, learned advocate waives service of notice
of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2.
Having
regard to the facts of the case and by consent of the learned
advocates for the parties, the matters are taken up for hearing
today.
Since
both these applications arise out of the same complaint, the same
are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
By
this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (the Code), the applicants seek quashment of the complaint
being Inquiry Case No.7 of 2008 pending before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, at Dakor.
The
facts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No.2 herein
had lodged the above referred complaint before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, at Dakor alleging commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, 167, 192, 196, 463, 464, 467, 468,
469, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants.
It
appears that during the pendency of the petition, the parties have
settled the disputes between them, which has been reduced in writing
by a compromise deed dated 1st September, 2008.
Mr.Vishal
Mehta, learned advocate for Mr.A.J.Shashtri, learned advocate for
the applicants in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.8000 of 2008
and Mr.Anvesh Vyas, learned advocate for Mr.N.K.Majmudar, learned
advocate for the applicants in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No.8361 of 2008, have jointly submitted that in view of the fact
that the parties have settled the disputes between them, the
complaint in question is required to be quashed in the interest of
justice.
Mr.V.M.Pancholi,
learned advocate for the respondent No.2 complainant has
submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the
parties, the respondent No.2 is no longer interested in prosecuting
the applicants and as such, he has no objection if the complaint in
question is quashed.
This
Court has also heard Mr.M.R.Mengdey, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 State of Gujarat.
In
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and
another,
(2008)9 SCC 677, the Apex Court has held that when a compromise has
been arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have
withdrawn all claims and allegations against each other,
technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing
the criminal proceedings since the same would be a futile exercise.
In
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008)4 SCC 582,
the Apex Court has made the following observations :
[6] We
need to emphasise 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.
Having
regard to the allegations made in the first information report, it
is evident that the same are purely personal in nature. Subsequent
to the lodging of the complaint, the parties i.e. the applicants and
the respondent No.2 complainant have amicably settled the
disputes between them, which has been reduced in writing in the form
of the compromise deed dated 1st September 2008, wherein
it is recorded that pursuant to the complaint in question, the
police had started investigation in connection with the said
offence; that due to intervention of leaders of the community and
the village, the parties have settled the matter between them and
both the sides have, without any force, willingly settled the
matter between them. Under the compromise recorded between the
parties, the respondent No.2 complainant has agreed that in the
proceedings under Section 482 of the Code filed before this Court,
the present compromise deed would be produced and that the parties
would agree that the complaint be quashed in the interest of
justice.
Considering
the facts of the case, in the light of the decisions cited
hereinabove, this Court is of the view that as the parties have
amicably settled the disputes between them, which even otherwise are
personal in nature, no useful purpose would be served by permitting
the prosecution to continue. Besides, in view of the amicable
settlement arrived at between the parties, chances of an ultimate
conviction are also bleak. In the circumstances, this is a fit case
for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code to secure the
ends of justice.
For
the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly,
allowed. Inquiry Case No.7 of 2008 pending before the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Dakor, is hereby quashed. Rule
is made absolute accordingly.
Registry
is directed to place a copy of this order in both the applications.
Direct
service is permitted.
[HARSHA
DEVANI, J.]
parmar*
Top