Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 686 (GUJ)

Rabari Dilipbhai Dharmeshbhai v. State of Gujarat

2015-07-10

ABHILASHA KUMARI

body2015
JUDGMENT Abhilasha Kumari, J. 1. Rule. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 1. Mr. Sandeepkumar R. Pandya, learned advocate states that he has received instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No. 2 - Complainant and would be filing his 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. 2 - Complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances in which the matter arises, it is being heard and decided finally, at this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This application under Section-482 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. II-188/2015 registered with Patan City "B" Division Police Station, on 21.06.2015, for offences under Sections-384, 385, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section-33 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 and all other consequential proceedings. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, respondent No. 2 herein, was in need of money and therefore took a loan from the present applicants. He took Rs. 2,00,000/- from Dilipbhai Rabari, Rs. 1,00,000/- from Alpeshbhai Rabari, Rs. 1,50,000/- from Bhaveshbhai Desai and Rs. 50,000/- from Rajubhai Desai. The complainant also availed of a loan of Rs. 17,00,000/- and Rs. 12,00,000/- from the other accused, namely Anil Patel and Raju Patel. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant was not able to repay the loan on time, for which forceful recovery was being done by the accused persons. Due to rising financial debt and stress of recovery of the above loan, the complainant tried to end his life by consuming pesticide. Later on, he was taken to the Dharpur Hospital for treatment as his health started deteriorating and the impugned complaint was lodged by him which was registered as C.R. No. II-188/2015 at Patan "B" Division Police Station on 21.06.2015. 4. It is the case of the applicants before this Court that the issue has now been amicably resolved between them and respondent No. 2 - Complainant, who has filed an affidavit to this effect which is at Annexure-B to the application. 4. It is the case of the applicants before this Court that the issue has now been amicably resolved between them and respondent No. 2 - Complainant, who has filed an affidavit to this effect which is at Annexure-B to the application. It is stated in the said affidavit that the FIR was filed due to a misunderstanding and the complainant tried to consume pesticide because of his own personal financial problem and not out of any pressure to repay the loan amount. It is further stated that since the dispute is settled, respondent No. 2 - Complainant has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings. 5. Mr. Jit P. Patel, learned advocate for the applicants submits that in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, as evidenced by the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 and as the dispute has been amicably resolved between the parties with the intervention of the family members and elders, further, as the complainant no longer wishes to proceed with the criminal proceedings against the applicants and has no objection to the quashing of the FIR against the applicants, the prayers made in the application may be granted. 6. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the applicants has placed reliance upon the 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. Sandeepkumar R. Pandya, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 has reiterated the stand of the complainant, as expressed in the affidavit dated 04.07.2015, by submitting that the FIR has been lodged due to a misunderstanding. The consumption of pesticide by respondent No. 2 was not due to any pressure to repay the loan, but due to his own financial problems. As the dispute has been amicably resolved and as no grievance remains on either side, the prayers made in the application may be granted. 9. The complainant is present in person. The complainant has been identified the learned advocate for respondent No. 2. As the dispute has been amicably resolved and as no grievance remains on either side, the prayers made in the application may be granted. 9. The complainant is present in person. The complainant has been identified the learned advocate for respondent No. 2. He has endorsed the stand taken by him in the affidavit. 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 utilized 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 Another (supra), the following order is passed: The complaint, being C.R. No. II-188/2015 registered with Patan City "B" Division Police Station, on 21.06.2015, for offences under Sections 384, 385, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 33 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 and all other consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside. 14. The application is allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. 15. Direct Service is permitted.