Gujarat High Court
Pannaben Pareshbhai Mehta vs State Of Gujarat on 19 July, 2018
Author: P.P.Bhatt
Bench: P.P.Bhatt
R/CR.MA/12680/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12680 of 2018
==========================================================
PANNABEN PARESHBHAI MEHTA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR S N THAKKAR(901) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR DHARMESH V SHAH(1050) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
MR H K PATEL, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.BHATT
Date : 19/07/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP Mr.H.K.Patel and learned advocate Mr.Dharmesh V. Shah waive service of Rule for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
2. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.
3. At the joint request of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
4. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.I-8 of 2003 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City as also the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1887/2003 arising out of aforesaid FIR pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat qua the petitioner.
Page 1 of 5R/CR.MA/12680/2018 ORDER
5. Learned advocate appearing for petitioner would submit that the amount outstanding towards loan disbursed by respondent No.2 - Bank is paid to the satisfaction of respondent No.2 - Bank pursuant to one time settlement scheme floated by the State of Gujarat and accordingly, No Due Certificate dated 30.06.2018 produced at Annexure-E is issued by the Authorized Officer of the bank and therefore, now it is prayed that the impugned FIR and proceedings initiated out of such FIR be quashed and set aside so as to avoid hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner has placed reliance on the orders dated 16.7.2009 and 12.01.2012 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.5827 of 2009 and Criminal Misc. Application No.17341 of 2011 respectively, in which the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of [i] Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., [(2008) 9 SCC 677] and [ii] Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008)4 SCC 582] quashed the complaint of similar nature.
6. Learned APP appearing for the respondent-State while opposing the present petition has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. [(2017)9 SCC 641] and submitted that the present petition may be dismissed.
7. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2-Bank confirms about issuance of the No Due Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/12680/2018 ORDER Certificate dated 30.06.2018 and Statement of Bank showing outstanding amount 'Nil' to the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has fully paid her outstanding dues with interest and now the bank has no grievance against the petitioner and the respondent No.2-Bank is no longer interested in pursuing the proceedings against the petitioner. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2- Bank has invited attention of the Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2-Bank, wherein it is stated that now the petitioner has fully paid her outstanding dues and No Due Certificate dated 30.06.2018 is issued and as such now the bank has no grievance against the petitioner.
8. Regard being had to the above submissions and considering the material placed on record, more particularly the No Due Certificate issued by the respondent No.2-Bank, the Statement of Bank which shows that the outstanding amount is 'Nil' and the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2-Bank, it appears that the petitioner has fully paid her outstanding dues with interest and now the bank has no grievance against the petitioner and the respondent No.2-Bank is no longer interested in pursuing the proceedings against the petitioner. I have considered the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported in (2008)4 SCC 582. I have also considered Page 3 of 5 R/CR.MA/12680/2018 ORDER the latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in (2017)9 SCC 641 and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the said decision.
9. It is settled legal position, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677, that when a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have withdrawn all claims and allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing the criminal proceedings since the same would be a futile exercise.
10. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported in (2008)4 SCC 582 has made the following observations :
"[6] We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as 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 and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."
11. In light of settled legal position as held by the Apex Court in case of Nikhil Merchant (supra) and Page 4 of 5 R/CR.MA/12680/2018 ORDER in case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) as also considering the overall facts as above and now, no amount of the said complaint is due qua the petitioner as per the No Due Certificate issued by the Authorized Officer of the bank and the continuance of proceedings arising out of the complaint would unnecessarily cause hardships to the petitioner and therefore, so as to secure the ends of justice, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned FIR and proceedings arising therefrom, as prayed for qua the petitioner only. This petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(P.P.BHATT, J) BDSONGARA Page 5 of 5