Gujarat High Court
Patel Virendrakumar Pittambarbhai & 2 vs State Of Gujarat & on 21 July, 2015
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
R/CR.MA/13295/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 13295 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
================================================================
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
or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
PATEL VIRENDRAKUMAR PITTAMBARBHAI & 2....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. ARCHIT P JANI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 3
MR HARDIK BRAHMBHATT FOR MR PRATIK B BAROT, ADVOCATE for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR LB DABHI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Date : 21/07/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1. Mr.Hardik Brahmbhatt,learned advocate Page 1 of 6 R/CR.MA/13295/2015 JUDGMENT for Mr.Pratik A. Barot, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2Complainant.
Considering the facts and circumstances in which the matter arises, it is being heard and decided finally, at this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. This application under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) has been preferred by the applicants with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR, being C.R.No.I210/2013, registered on 08.08.2013, at Visnagar Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections406, 465, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that respondent No.2 alleged that the applicant had forged his signature on a Partition Deed dated 16.01.2007 executed on Rs.50/ stamp paper between the family members. As a result of the same, parcels of land bearing Survey Nos.264/2, 265/1, 351/1, 523/6 and 953/1/2, admeasuring about 5.25 Vigha were transferred amongst the family members. Under the circumstances, the FIR in question came to be filed.
Page 2 of 6
R/CR.MA/13295/2015 JUDGMENT
4. It is the case of the applicants before this Court that an amicable settlement has now been arrived at between them and respondent No.2, who are relatives, with the intervention of elders of the community.
Respondent No.2 no longer wants to proceed with the criminal prosecution against the applicants and has no objection to the quashing of the FIR, therefore, the prayers made in the application may be granted.
5. Mr.Archit P. Jani, learned advocate for the applicants submits that in view of the amicable settlement between the applicants and respondent No.2, as stated in the affidavit filed by him and as the applicant and the first informant are related to each other, the FIR in question may be quashed since respondent No.2 no longer wants to proceed with the matter and has no objection if the FIR is quashed and set aside.
6. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported in (2008)4 SCC 582 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another Page 3 of 6 R/CR.MA/13295/2015 JUDGMENT reported in (2012)10 SCC 303.
7. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 has objected to the prayer made by the applicant and respondent No.2 and submits that the law may be permitted to run its own course.
8. Mr.Hardik Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the stand taken by the complainant in his affidavit, by submitting that in view of the fact that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties, who are relatives, with the intervention of the elders of the family and as respondent No.2 no longer wants to proceed with the criminal prosecution against the applicants, no fruitful purpose would be served if the criminal prosecution is continued .
9. The complainant is present in person. The complainant has been identified by the learned advocate for respondent No.2. He has reiterated the stand taken by him in the affidavit.
10. This Court has heard learned counsel for the Page 4 of 6 R/CR.MA/13295/2015 JUDGMENT respective parties and perused the averments made in the application as well as the contents of the affidavit.
11. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra), the Supreme Court has held that it is advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the courts should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings, since 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. The time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.
12. This position of law has been reiterated in a more recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another (supra).
13. In view of settlement between the parties and considering the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another (supra), the following order is passed: Page 5 of 6
R/CR.MA/13295/2015 JUDGMENT The complaint, being being C.R.No.I210/2013, registered on 08.08.2013, at Visnagar Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside.
14. The application is allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.
15. Direct Service is permitted.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) Gaurav+ Page 6 of 6