Gujarat High Court
Chetankumar Ranchhodbhai Patel & 4 vs State Of Gujarat & on 23 July, 2015
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
R/SCR.A/4423/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4423 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
CHETANKUMAR RANCHHODBHAI PATEL & 4....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 5
MR LB DABHI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Date : 23/07/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1. Mr.Pratik Y. Jasani,learned advocate states that he has received instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2 and would be filing his Page 1 of 6 R/SCR.A/4423/2015 JUDGMENT Vakalatnama in the Registry, during the course of the day. He is permitted to do so. He waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2Complainant.
Considering the facts and circumstances in which the matter arises, the application is being heard and decided finally, at this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. This application under Article226 of the Constitution of India read with Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) has been preferred by the applicants with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR, being C.R.No.I150/2015, registered with Godhra Taluka Police Station, on 11.07.2015, for offences punishable under Sections465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution is to the effect that the original accused persons got executed a Sale Deed with regard to land situated at Revenue Survey No.220, Khata No.104, which is of the ownership of respondent No.2, by brining a dummy person, who impersonated respondent No.2. It is alleged that false documents have been created by the original accused Page 2 of 6 R/SCR.A/4423/2015 JUDGMENT persons with a view to grab the land of respondent No.2. Under the circumstances, the FIR in question came to be registered.
4. It is the case of the applicants before this Court that now the matter has been amicably resolved between them and respondent No.2, as stated by the said respondent in the affidavit filed by her. As respondent No.2 no longer wants to proceed with the criminal prosecution against the applicants and has no objection to the quashing of the FIR, the prayer made in the application may be granted.
5. Mr.P.P.Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicants submits that in view of the amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties and as respondent No.2 has categorically stated in the affidavit that the dispute arose due to a misunderstanding which has now been resolved and as the said respondent has no objection to the quashing of the FIR, the prayer made in the application may be granted.
6. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the applicants has placed reliance upon the Page 3 of 6 R/SCR.A/4423/2015 JUDGMENT judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported in (2008)4 SCC 582 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303.
7. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 has objected to the prayer made by the applicants and respondent No.2 and submits that the law may be permitted to run its own course.
8. Mr.Pratik Y. Jasani, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the stand taken by the said respondent in the affidavit, affirmed by her on 19.07.2015, wherein it is stated that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between her and the original accused persons. No misunderstanding or grievance remains between them andrespondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed and set aside.
9. The complainant is present in person. The complainant has been identified by Mr.Pratik Y. Jasani, learned advocate for respondent No.2. She has reiterated the stand taken by her in the affidavit. Page 4 of 6
R/SCR.A/4423/2015 JUDGMENT
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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).
13. 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 Page 5 of 6 R/SCR.A/4423/2015 JUDGMENT Another (supra), the following order is passed:
The complaint, being C.R.No.I150/2015, registered with Godhra Taluka Police Station, on 11.07.2015, for offences punishable under Sections465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside.
14. The application is allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.
15. Direct Service is permitted.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) Gaurav+ Page 6 of 6