Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 541 (GUJ)

Prakashbhai H. Rathod v. State of Gujarat

2011-07-15

M.R.SHAH

body2011
Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—Rule. Mr. K.P .Rawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.M. Gohil, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and as it is reported that the dispute is settled between the parties, the present application is taken up for final hearing today. 3. 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 impugned complaint / FIR being C.R. No. I-85/2011 lodged by the Respondent No. 2 – original complainant with Kapodara Police Station, Surat lodged against the applicants – original accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506(2), 114 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is reported by learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties that now the dispute has been settled between the parties amicably and Respondent No. 2 – original complainant has no objection, if the impugned complaint/FIR is quashed and set aside in view of the settlement between the parties. Respondent No. 2 – original complainant is also personally present in the Court. He has submitted that even he has been paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by cash towards expenditure incurred by him for the treatment. Therefore, he has stated that he has no objection if the impugned complaint/FIR is quashed and set aside and has requested to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the impugned complaint/FIR in the larger interest of the parties. 5. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties have relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 . 6. Mr. Rawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to pass appropriate order in view of the settlement. 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, it appears from the impugned complaint/FIR that the dispute between the parties is private in nature, which is now reported to have been amicably settled between the parties. 6. Mr. Rawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to pass appropriate order in view of the settlement. 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, it appears from the impugned complaint/FIR that the dispute between the parties is private in nature, which is now reported to have been amicably settled between the parties. Respondent No. 2 - original complainant is also personally present in the Court and has stated at the bar that the parties have entered into the settlement in the larger interest of the family and now there is no dispute between the parties. He has also stated at the bar that he has no objection if the impugned complaint/FIR, copy of which is produced at Annexure “A” to the petition, is quashed and set aside. Under the circumstances when the dispute between the parties is private in nature and the parties have settled the dispute amicably, to continue the criminal proceedings against the applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the parties and the same shall not be in the larger interest of the parties. 8. Under the circumstances, considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (Supra), it appears that this is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the impugned complaint/FIR and consequentially to terminate the further proceedings, if any, arising out of the impugned complaint / FIR. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition succeeds. The impugned complaint / FIR being C.R. No. I-85/2011 lodged by the Respondent No. 2 – original complainant with Kapodara Police Station, Surat, is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid complaint, if any, are also terminated. Rule is made absolute accordingly.