Gujarat High Court High Court

Rajkumar vs State on 25 February, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Rajkumar vs State on 25 February, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/1823/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1823 of 2010
 

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

 

RAJKUMAR
BIKAMCHAND BHANDARI & 1 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
JAYESH A DAVE for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. 
MS CM SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MS
URMILA N. DESAI for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

Date
: 25/02/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

Leave
to amend.

Rule.

Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah
waives service of Rule for respondent No.1, State of Gujarat.
Learned advocate Ms. Urmila N. Desai waives service of Rule for
respondent No.2.

Petitioners
are original accused in a complaint lodged by respondent No.2, copy
of which is produced at Annexure A. Complaint is dated 04.10.2009
filed before the Palsana Police Station being C.R. No.63/2009.

Learned
advocates appearing for the parties jointly submit that disputes have
been resolved between the parties. Counsel for the petitioners,
however, submitted that the complaint arose out of commercial
transactions between the complainant and the petitioners. All
disputes have now been resolved. To this aspect, counsel for the
complainant also fully supported. A compromise pursis duly signed by
both sides is produced on record.

Under
the circumstances though I find that no useful purpose would be
served in permitting further investigation into the said allegations,
I cannot lose sight of the fact that the complainant has made
allegations against the petitioners or having committed cheating and
misappropriation worth several lacs of rupees. Complainant had with
full seriousness and consciousness set the State machinery into
motion. If, it is now his case that the disputes were only
commercial in nature, he cannot escape the responsibility of paying
cost to the State.

Under
the circumstances, complaint Annexure A is quashed, subject to
condition that complainant
pays cost of Rs.25,000/- to the State. It is clarified that quashing
order shall effect only after such cost is deposited. Rule is made
absolute.

(Akil
Kureshi, J.)

menon

   

Top