Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4731/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4731 of 2008
==========================================
PARESHKUMAR
CHANDULAL SHAH
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & ANR
==========================================
Appearance
:
MR FB BRAHMBHATT for
Applicant:1
MR KP RAVAL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent:1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent:2
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 30/06/2008
ORAL ORDER
RULE.
Mr.K.P.Raval, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondent No.1 State of Gujarat and the respondent
No.2 original complainant Mr.Bhupatsinh Kalusinh Thakor waives
service of notice of Rule.
Having
regard to the facts of the case, by consent of the learned Advocates
for the parties as well as the complainant Mr.Bhupatsinh Kalusinh
Thakor, the matter is taken up for hearing today.
The
facts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No.2 herein
had lodged a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Prantij for the offences punishable under sections 420 and
406 of the Indian Penal Code which came to be registered as Inquiry
Case No.55 of 2000. By an order dated 15th December, 2000
an investigation was ordered under the provisions of Section 156(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘the Code’), pursuant to
which the same was registered as M.Case No.18 of 2000. Upon
conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the
same came to be registered as Criminal Case No.186 of 2001 which is
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Prantij.
By
an order dated 15th April, 2008, while issuing Notice
this Court had recorded the statement of the learned Advocate for
the petitioner that the petitioner would deposit the disputed amount
of Rs.40,000/- before this Court on or before 28th
April, 2008.
In
response to the Notice issued by this Court, the respondent No.2 had
remained present before this Court and tendered an affidavit dated
9th May, 2008. He had also stated that he no longer
desires to pursue the complaint any further. It is stated in the
affidavit that he has received Rs.30,000/- in cash from the
petitioner and that the same has been accepted in full and final
settlement of the accounts between the parties. It is categorically
averred that no amount is due and payable by the petitioner to the
complainant and that the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited by the
petitioner with the Registry of this Court on 28th April,
2008 may be returned to the petitioner and that the complainant has
no objection to the same.
This
Court in the case of Rajeshbhai
Natwarlal Agrawal and Ors. v. State of Gujarat
(2005) 3 GLH 504 has, after considering various decisions on the
issue, held that it would not be just and proper nor it would be in
the interest of justice to compel the parties to face trial despite
there being settlement. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the
case of Inderjitsinh v. State of U.T., Chandigarh &
Anr. III (2006) CCR 24 has
held that continuation of proceedings will be an exercise in
futility where the parties have amicably settled the dispute and
have compromised the matter.
Applying
the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of
the present case, it is apparent that the dispute between the
parties was in respect of non-payment of certain amounts to the
respondent No.2 complainant. In view of the fact that the amount has
been repaid to the respondent No.2, the grievance voiced in the
complaint no longer survives. Besides, the parties have amicably
settled the dispute between them and the complainant is no longer
interested in prosecuting the complaint against the petitioner,
hence, chances of an ultimate conviction are also bleak. In the
circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings against the
petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. This
is, therefore, a fit case for exercise of powers under Section 482
of the Code.
For
the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is accordingly
allowed. Criminal Case No.186 of 2001 pending before the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Prantij as well as Talod Police
Station M.Case No.18 of 2000, are hereby quashed. Rule is made
absolute accordingly.
Direct
Service is permitted.
(HARSHA
DEVANI, J.)
Amit/-
Top