Gujarat High Court
Amish Jashubhai Gandhi vs State Of Gujarat & on 11 August, 2015
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
R/CR.MA/14784/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 14784 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 ?
================================================================
AMISH JASHUBHAI GANDHI....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPEN DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, LEARNED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Date : 11/08/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 7
HC-NIC Page 1 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 15 00:42:36 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/14784/2015 JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1. Mr.Rahul R. Dholakia, learned advocate, states that he has received instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2 (complainant) and would be filing his Vakalatnama in the Registry, during the course of the day. He is permitted to do so. He waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of said respondent. Considering the facts and circumstances in which the matter arises, the application is being heard and decided finally, at this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short) has been preferred with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No.I33 of 2015 registered with Elisbridge Police Station, Ahmedabad, dated 19.02.2015 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, and other consequential proceedings.
Page 2 of 7
HC-NIC Page 2 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 15 00:42:36 IST 2015
R/CR.MA/14784/2015 JUDGMENT
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that at about 13:30 hours of 19.02.2015, the complainant, along with his accomplices, had gone to the disputed property in a tempo vehicle along with his household articles. When the complainant was unloading the household items, the applicant started abusing him and wanted to know why he had damaged the said property. It is alleged that the applicant gave a knife blow to Sanjaybhai. Thereafter, the complainant successfully snatched away the knife from the applicant and made a hue and cry, due to which the residents of the society gathered there and a 108 ambulance was called. Under the circumstances, the FIR in question came to be lodged.
4. The applicant has also filed a crosscomplaint against the complainant, which has been registered as C.R. No.I34 of 2015 with Elisbridge Police Station, Ahmedabad City, dated 20.02.2015 for offences punishable under Sections 324, 427, 380, 452 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951.
Page 3 of 7
HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 15 00:42:36 IST 2015
R/CR.MA/14784/2015 JUDGMENT
5. It is the case of the applicant that the issue has now been resolved between the applicant and respondent No.2complainant, who has filed an affidavit, in this regard, stating that in view of the amicable settlement between him and the applicant with the intervention of the trusted persons of the society, respondent No.2 no longer wishes to proceed with the criminal prosecution against the applicant and has no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed and set aside.
6. Mr.Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the applicant, submits that in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, and as respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the FIR, the prayer made in the application may be granted.
7. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported in (2008)4 582 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303.
Page 4 of 7
HC-NIC Page 4 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 15 00:42:36 IST 2015
R/CR.MA/14784/2015 JUDGMENT
8. 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.
9. Mr.Rahul R. Dholakia, learned advocate for respondent No.2, has reiterated the stand taken by the said respondent in the affidavit affirmed by him on 02.08.2015, by submitting that the dispute has now been amicably resolved between the applicant and respondent No.2 with the intervention of the trusted persons of the society and no illwill or grievance remains between the parties, therefore, the prayer made in the application may be granted.
10. The injured person, Sanjaybhai, has also filed an affidavit stating that he had sustained an injury in the scuffle that took place during the incident, which is healed and the dispute has been resolved amicably between the applicant and respondent No.2. The witness has further stated that in view of the compromise, he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed and Page 5 of 7 HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 15 00:42:36 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/14784/2015 JUDGMENT set aside.
11. The complainant is present inperson before this Court and has been identified by his learned advocate. He has reiterated the averments made by him in the affidavit. The witness is identified by Mr.Rahul R. Dholakia, learned advocate for respondent No.2.
12. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments made in the application as well as the contents of the affidavit.
13. 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.
14. This position of law has been reiterated in a Page 6 of 7 HC-NIC Page 6 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 15 00:42:36 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/14784/2015 JUDGMENT more recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another (supra).
15. 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:
The complaint, being C.R. No.I33 of 2015 registered with Elisbridge Police Station, Ahmedabad, dated 19.02.2015 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 and other consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside.
16. The application is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.
Direct Service is permitted.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) piyush Page 7 of 7 HC-NIC Page 7 of 7 Created On Sat Aug 15 00:42:36 IST 2015