Gujarat High Court
Vasantbhai Zaverbhai Kotak vs State Of Gujarat on 30 July, 2018
Author: P.P.Bhatt
Bench: P.P.Bhatt
R/CR.MA/13666/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13666 of 2018
==========================================================
VASANTBHAI ZAVERBHAI KOTAK
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADIL R MIRZA(2488) for the PETITIONER(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3
MR RUTVIJ OZA, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.BHATT
Date : 30/07/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Learned advocate Mr. Sumit K. Prajapati states that he has an instructions to appear for the respondent No.2 - complainant. He is permitted to file his appearance forthwith.
2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
3. 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 applicant and respondent No.2 has been resolved Page 1 of 5 R/CR.MA/13666/2018 ORDER amicably, this application 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 "the Code"), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I - 45 of 1996 registered with Dharampur Police Station, Dist. Valsad for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 395, 452, 420 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the G.P Act, chargesheet and consequential Sessions Case No. 307 of 2002 and 397 of 2002.
5. Learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. It is submitted that the applicant No.12, Manilal Ramjibhai Chaudhary has expired after filing the present application on 11.07.2018. The Death Certificate issued by the Department of Health And Family Welfare, Government of Gujarat is placed on record. It is further submitted that the Complainant Kumuben W/o Harilal Ramjivandas Panwala ispresent before the Court and admit the contents of the affidavit. It is also stated that the settlement has arrived at between applicants and complainants and accordingly she has no objection if FIR in question is ordered to be quashed and set aside. It is stated that the said affidavit is filed without any threat. It is also stated upon instruction of the applicants No. 1 and 7 Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/13666/2018 ORDER who are present before this Court, all the 15 applicants shall file undertaking before this Court that they will pay compensation of Rs. 1 lac within a period of 1 month from the date of filing of the undertaking out of which Rs.50 thousand shall be deposited within a period of two weeks from the date of filling undertaking. 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 there from would create hardship to the applicant. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society. It is 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.
6. 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.
7. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has Page 3 of 5 R/CR.MA/13666/2018 ORDER reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 also relied upon the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 - Kumuben, w/o Harilal Ramjivandas Panwala dated 30.07.2018. Respondent No.2 is present in person before the Court and is identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No.2 has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed.
8. Having heard the 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 applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant. I have also considered the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Page 4 of 5 R/CR.MA/13666/2018 ORDER @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 dated 4.10.2017 and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, particularly paragraph 15. Considering the nature of disputes between the parties which are all private in nature, I am of the opinion that the matter requires consideration. 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.
9. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I - 45 of 1996 registered with Dharampur Police Station, Dist. Valsad is hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. are also quashed and set aside qua the applicant. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute.
Direct service is permitted.
(P.P.BHATT, J) N.V.MEWADA Page 5 of 5