Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 501 (GUJ)

Atulkumar Bhikhalal Valand v. State of Gujarat

2011-07-01

M.R.SHAH

body2011
Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—Rule. Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Bela Prajapati, learned advocate wavies service of notice of rule on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 2. It is reported by Ms. Bela Prajapati, learned advocate that she has already filed the Vakalatnama in the Registry today on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the present application is taken up for final hearing today. 4. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicants-original accused to quash and set aside the Complaint/FIR being CR II 3142/2010 lodged with Shahpur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506(2), 504 and 294-B of the Indian Penal Code and other offences. 5. The Complaint has been lodged against the applicants, who are the Police Officers, at Shahpur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506(2), 504 and 294-B of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Shri Mangukiya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants-original accused and Ms. Bela Prajapati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2, who is an advocate practicing at the Court at Ahmedabad Rural, have jointly submitted that due to intervention of the Senior Members of the Bar of the Ahmedabad (Rural) Court parties have settled the dispute amicably and there is no cause for Respondent No. 2 now to continue with the criminal proceedings for which the Complaint has been filed, and, therefore, it is requested to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the impugned Complaint/FIR. Shri Mangukiya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has submitted that even otherwise on merits, no case is made out under Section 3 of the Prevention of Atrocity (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Act. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677 in support of their prayer to quash and set aside the impugned Complaint/FIR. 7. Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned APP has requested to pass appropriate order. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, it appears that now the parties have settled the dispute amicably and it appears that due to intervention of the Senior Members of the Bar practicing at Ahmedabad (Rural) Court in the larger interest the parties have settled the dispute amicably. It appears that due to the incident in question there was strike and the Courts were closed for four days and thereafter due to the intervention of the Senior members of the bar settlement has taken place. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi (Supra) and in the case of Nikhil Merchant (Supra) to continue the criminal proceedings against the applicants would be an exercise in futility and/or undue harassment to the parties and, therefore, this is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the impugned Complaint/FIR. It is to be noted that the applicants are charged for the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Atrocity (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Act. However, looking to the FIR as such no case is made out against the applicants for the aforesaid offence, and, therefore, to continue the criminal proceedings against the applicants shall be abuse of process of law. It also appears to the Court that in the larger interest and as the wiser Counsel is prevailing the parties have rightly amicably settled the dispute. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application succeeds and the impugned Complaint/FIR, being CR II 3142/2010 lodged with the Shahpur Police Station filed against the applicants is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No cost. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application succeeds and the impugned Complaint/FIR, being CR II 3142/2010 lodged with the Shahpur Police Station filed against the applicants is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No cost. Direct service is permitted. P P P P P