Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 315 (GUJ)

Kantilal Manilal Patel v. State of Gujarat

2011-04-13

M.D.SHAH

body2011
Judgment M.D. Shah, J.—Rule. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ms. M.L. Shah and Learned Advocate, Mr. Tejas M. Barot, waive service of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. 2. The present application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR registered as I.C.R. No.83 of 2010 before Pethapur Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of IPC in pursuance of complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2-complainant. 3. Heard Learned Advocate, Mr. Pravin P. Panchal for the petitioners, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ms. M. L. Shah for the Respondent No. 1 and Learned Advocate, Mr. Tejas M. Barot, for the Respondent No. 2. 4. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate for the petitioners that matter is settled between the parties and now Respondent No. 2 – ori. complainant has no grievance against the present petitioner and requests to quash the complaint. On behalf of Respondent No. 2 Learned Advocate Mr. Tejas M. Barot has filed Vakalatnama and she is identified by the Learned Advocate. 5. It is submitted by the original complainant – Respondent No. 2 that the matter is amicably settled between her and present petitioners because of intervention of the family members. An affidavit dated 13.4.2011 of Respondent No. 2 – ori. complainant to this effect is also placed on record, which is ordered to be taken on record. The complainant has submitted that the matter is settled between the parties and a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and that the settlement is not under any duress. It is further submitted that now she has no grievance against the petitioners. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases page 582 has observed as under in Paras 5 and 7 of the judgment: “5. It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out.” “7. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs. 250/- which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case, direct that FIR No.155 dated 17th November 2001 P.S. Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed.” 7. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that this Cri. Misc. Application is required to be allowed and the parties be permitted to compound the offence. 8. In the result, this Cri. Misc. Application is allowed. The complaint being I.C.R. No. 83 of 2010 registered before Pethapur Police Station, and the proceedings therein are required to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.