Gujarat High Court
Mangesh vs State on 6 December, 2011
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
CR.MA/17867/2011 2/ 2 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 17867 of 2011 ========================================= MANGESH TUKARAM SAWANT & 1 - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR JV MEHTA for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.MS KRISHNA B MEHTA for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. MR JK SHAH ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, MR DM THAKKAR for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 02/04/2012 ORAL ORDER
1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") is filed with a direction to quash and set aside F.I.R. bearing No.II-3278 of 2011 dated 6.12.2011 against the applicants for the alleged offence under Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code lodged before respondent No.2 at Bhilad Police Station, District: Valsad.
2. At the ouset, learned advocate appearing for the parties have jointly submitted that the matter can be disposed of finally in view of nature of offence registered and further the subject complaint, for which, an amicable settlement is arrived at between the parties and the complainant has filed affidavit dated 26.12.2011 stating that the complaint was filed under misconception and due to misunderstanding and now due to intervention and clarification, no further grievances remains. In support of the above learned advocate for the applicants has relied on the Apex Court decisions in the case of (1) B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], (2) Nikhil Merchant v. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677] and (3) Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582].
3. Upon verification of the antecedent of the applicants and that applicant No.1 is carrying construction work and applicant No.2 is advocate and having no other criminal antecedent and considering overall facts and circumstances, nature of allegations and amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the affidavit filed by the complainant that he has no objection that if the complaint is quashed and set aside in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, I am of the view that relegating the applicants to rigour of the trial would on the contrary either increase arrears and burden of the Court and likelihood of the conviction of the accused is meager and, therefore, interest of justice will be served by exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code. Accordingly, the impugned complaint is quashed and set aside.
4. The application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita//