Gujarat High Court
Vanrajsinh Ganpatsinh Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 25 July, 2018
Author: R.P.Dholaria
Bench: R.P.Dholaria
R/CR.MA/13821/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13821 of 2018
==========================================================
VANRAJSINH GANPATSINH RATHOD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VIJAY PATEL FOR HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the
PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
MR. L.B.DABHI APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 25/07/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Learned advocate Mr. Keyur Gandhi states that he has instructions to appear for the original complainant - respondent No.2. He is permitted to file his appearance forthwith.
2. Mr. Keyur Gandhi, learned advocate has tendered Affidavit filed by respondent no.2Karan Mukeshbhai Bhatt. The same is ordered to be taken on record.
3. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
Page 1 of 5R/CR.MA/13821/2018 ORDER
4. Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the applicants and respondent No.2 has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
5. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I - 29 of 2018 registered with Sanand GIDC Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code Act as well as quash all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicants.
6. Learned advocate for the applicants has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicants. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 is resolved. It is Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/13821/2018 ORDER further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. It is therefore submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code and allow the application as prayed for.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the present application and submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint in question may not be quashed and the present application may be rejected.
8. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 also relied upon the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 - Karan Mukeshbhai Bhatt dated 23.07.2018. Respondent No.2 is present in person before the Court and is identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2. The complainant states that the matter is settled between the parties and also admits the contents of the Affidavit. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No.2 has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicants and the respondent No.2 is resolved, and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed.
Page 3 of 5R/CR.MA/13821/2018 ORDER
9. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code.
10. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing C.R.No.I-29 of 2018 registered with Sanand GIDC Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad filed against the present applicants, is hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants and all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside qua the applicants.
Page 4 of 5R/CR.MA/13821/2018 ORDER 11. As the impugned FIR bearing C.R.No.I - 29 of 2018 registered with Sanand GIDC Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad, stands quashed and set aside by this Court, the applicantsaccused are ordered to be released from jail forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute.
Direct service is permitted.
(R.P.DHOLARIA, J) MANOJ KUMAR Page 5 of 5