Arun Ghisalal Varma & vs State Of Gujarat & on 25 April, 2014

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Arun Ghisalal Varma & vs State Of Gujarat & on 25 April, 2014

Bench: G.R.Udhwani

       R/SCR.A/1667/2014                                   JUDGMENT




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1667 of 2014
                                  With
          SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1670 of 2014


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:



HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

================================================================

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, 1950 or any
    order made thereunder ?

5   Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

================================================================
                  ARUN GHISALAL VARMA & 1 ....Applicants
                                Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ANUJ K TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YASH N NANAVATY, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR L B DABHI ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

                             Date : 25/04/2014



                                 Page 1 of 3
        R/SCR.A/1667/2014                           JUDGMENT



                           COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

Learned Counsel Mr.Yash Nanavati, appears for 2nd respondent, identifies the original complainant in both the petitions.

RULE. Respondents waive service. Considering the short dispute and settlement between the parties, Rule is heard today by consent of the parties.

An FIR being ICR No.65 of 2011 in Ahmedabad Rural Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code came to be lodged. The matter is now settled. Affidavit acknowledging such settlement is placed on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and 2nd respondent state that no interest of any third party not being the party to the petition or victim or witness in the criminal case herein is adversely affected by this settlement. Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties would urge this Court to quash the FIR.

Learned APP while vehemently opposing the quashing of the FIR would contend that the offence alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature, and would require trial.

Considering the nature of the allegations as above, this is a fit case where this Court would permit a settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Page 2 of 3 R/SCR.A/1667/2014 JUDGMENT Criminal Procedure, as held in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012 (10) SCC 303) that such dispute even if not compoundable, can be compounded under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The dispute is of predominantly private character and the complainant having decided against supporting the prosecution case, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the trial, which may cause wastage of public time, money and energy.

Under the circumstances, both the petitions are allowed. FIR and all others subsequent connected proceedings in question qua the petitioners are quashed.

Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Direct Service is permitted.

(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) sompura Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court