Gujarat High Court
Hiteshbhai Jayantibhai Sutariya vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 September, 2014
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
R/CR.MA/13827/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13827 of 2014
(FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
============================================================
====
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
HITESHBHAI JAYANTIBHAI SUTARIYA....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PARTHIV B SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ALKESH N SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MAULIK SHAH, ADVOCATE for respondent No.2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 04/09/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
Page 1 of 5R/CR.MA/13827/2014 JUDGMENT
2. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents. Mr.Maulik Shah, learned advocate shall file his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2 during the course of the day.
3. The present application is filed by original accused No.6 and therefore, any observations made in this judgment shall apply only to the present applicant -original accused No.6 of the impugned FIR and shall not apply to any other accused.
4. Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the applicant and respondent No.2 has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
5. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR bearing C.R.No.I-281 of 2014 registered with Kamrej Police Station, Dist:Surat, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as the other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicant.
6. The learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/13827/2014 JUDGMENT proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicant. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. It is therefore submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code and allow the application as prayed for.
7. The learned APP has candidly submitted that in view of the fact that the applicants and respondent No.2 have amicably resolved the dispute, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
8. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 also relied upon the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 - Kantibhai Khodabhai Bajariya, dated 02.09.2014. Respondent No.2 is present in person before the Court and is identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 has produced a photocopy of the driving licence, identifying respondent No.2. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No.2 has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed.
Page 3 of 5R/CR.MA/13827/2014 JUDGMENT
9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of CBI, ACB, Mumbai Vs. Narendra Lal Jain & Ors., reported in 2014 (5) SCC 364, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law and Court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code.
10. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing C.R.No.I-281 of 2014 registered with Kamrej Police Station, Dist: Surat, filed against the present applicant is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. It is, however, clarified that this judgment would apply only to the present applicant. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
Page 4 of 5 R/CR.MA/13827/2014 JUDGMENT
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.)
Suchit
Page 5 of 5