Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Munnabhai Sartanbhai Raval vs State Of Gujarat on 18 December, 2023

                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




     R/CR.MA/18071/2023                         ORDER DATED: 18/12/2023

                                                                              undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO.
                                18071 of 2023
==========================================================
                     MUNNABHAI SARTANBHAI RAVAL
                                   Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SATISH A PANDYA(556) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR HARESH J TRIVEDI(927) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
   CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 18/12/2023
                             ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

4. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR C.R. No.11191023230722 of 2023 registered with Wadaj Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 120(b) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Fraud and Money Circulation Scheme Mercury Act as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18071/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/12/2023 undefined

5. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants have nothing to do with the offence and they are falsely implicated in it. It is submitted that the application may be allowed as a settlement arrived at between the accused No.3, 4, 5 and 7 and the complainant.

6. Learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that the applicants herein were running a scheme for a prize called Jay Jalaram Foundation and Jay Jalaram Mitra Mandal under different names. The accused persons opened a draw scheme, requiring the complainant and witnesses to pay Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- every month. Through this prize draw scheme, the accused persons collected a total of Rs. 2,53,000/-. Subsequently, the accused persons closed their office as part of a pre-planned conspiracy, committing criminal breach of trust and fraud against the investors of the said draw scheme. Therefore, the present application may be dismissed.

7. Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit, which is placed on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the applicants have been resolved amicably and that he has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18071/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/12/2023 undefined

8. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the fact that an amicable settlement has been reached between the parties, and the dispute is of a private nature and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of

(i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicants in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the applicants. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..

7. In the aforesaid backdrop, complaint is filed. It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 18 20:49:19 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18071/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/12/2023 undefined principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard- and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.

8. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned complaint being C.R. No.11191023230722 of 2023 registered with Wadaj Police Station, Ahmedabad as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants herein. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. If the applicants are in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the applicant forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 18 20:49:19 IST 2023