Gujarat High Court
Lakhabhai Ranbhai Vadhiya & 4 vs State Of Gujarat & on 3 July, 2015
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
R/CR.MA/12525/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 12525 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
===========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
LAKHABHAI RANBHAI VADHIYA & 4....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RAXIT J DHOLAKIA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 5
MR LB DABHI, LEARNED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN S POPAT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s)No.2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Date : 03/07/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 7
R/CR.MA/12525/2015 JUDGMENT
1. Leave to amend Paragraph4 of the affidavit at page17 AnnexureB, so as to indicate the correct C.R. Number, is granted. The necessary amendment be carried out, forthwith.
2. Rule. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1. Mr.Chintan S. Popat, learned advocate, submits that he has received instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2 and would be filing his Vakalatnama. He is permitted to do so. He waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the said respondent. 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.
3. 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.I22 of 2015 registered with Chorvad Police Station, Junagadh, dated 27.05.2015 for offences punishable under Sections 326, 325, 323, 504, Page 2 of 7 R/CR.MA/12525/2015 JUDGMENT 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is to the effect that respondent No.2 complainant started towards his village from his farm. When he reached the water canal, at that time, the applicants were trying to block the canal for the purpose of planting coconut trees on the land. The complainant inquired the reason why they were doing so. At this, the applicants got angry. Thereafter, applicant No.1 allegedly gave an axe blow on the head of the complainant, applicant No.2 gave a pipe blow on the back side of the complainant and applicant No.3 gave a pipe blow to the complainant. Thereafter, the family members of the complainant intervened and at that time, applicants Nos.4 and 5 abused and threatened the complainant. The ambulance was called which took the complainant hospital. Under the circumstances, the FIR in question came to be registered.
5. The applicants have also filed a crosscomplaint against the complainant and six other accused persons, which has been registered as C.R.No.I23 of 2015 with Page 3 of 7 R/CR.MA/12525/2015 JUDGMENT Chorvad Police Station, Junagadh, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 325, 324, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
6. Before this Court, it is the case of the applicants that now the dispute has been amicably settled between the applicants and the complainant and to this effect, respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit stating that in view of the settlement, he is no longer desirous of prosecuting the criminal proceedings against the applicants.
7. Mr.Raxit J. Dholakia, learned advocate for the applicants, has submitted that as the matter has been amicably resolved between the applicants and the complainant, who are wellknown to each other since a long time and harmony has been established between the parties, the prayers made in the application may be granted, especially, as respondent No.2complainant no longer wants to proceed with the criminal proceedings and has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed and set aside.
Page 4 of 7
R/CR.MA/12525/2015 JUDGMENT
8. 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)4 582 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303.
9. 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.
10. Mr.Chintan S. Popat, learned advocate respondent No.2 complainant, has reiterated the stand taken by respondent No.2 in his affidavit affirmed on 26.06.2015 by submitting that the issue has been amicably resolved between the applicants and respondent No.2complainant with the intervention of the family members and has no objection if the FIR is quashed and set aside.
11. The complainant is present inperson before this Page 5 of 7 R/CR.MA/12525/2015 JUDGMENT Court and has been identified by the learned advocate for respondent No.2Complainant. He has endorsed the stand taken by him in the affidavit.
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 more recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another (supra).
Page 6 of 7
R/CR.MA/12525/2015 JUDGMENT 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.I22 of 2015 registered with Chorvad Police Station, Junagadh, dated 27.05.2015 for offences punishable under Sections 326, 325, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and the resultant 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