Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 170 (GUJ)

Nikunj Vinodbhai Patel v. State Of Gujarat

2023-01-19

NIRZAR S.DESAI

body2023
ORDER : ORDER IN R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3170 of 2014 1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR being II - C.R.No. 187 of 2014 registered with ‘B’-Division Police Station, District :- Patan for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 114 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicants. 2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the present application is taken up for final disposal today. 3. In the F.I.R., it is alleged that the complainant was introduced to one Patel Viralbhai Mohanbhai and other persons named in the F.I.R. had developed friendly relations with them and they decided to go to Canada, for going to Canada they developed a contact with one agent viz. Pankaj Gupta through one of the friend of the complainant and through that person they went to Thailand, however, on reaching Thailand they realized that they have been cheated as their file was never put up. The persons named in the F.I.R. blamed the complainant for the aforesaid cheating and therefore, they used to threatened the complainant on phone. Therefore, the F.I.R. is registered. 4. Heard learned advocate, Mr.Dipen F. Chaudhari for the applicants, learned APP Mr.Soham Joshi for respondent-State and Mr. Bhavik Shah for learned advocate Mr.M.B. Rana for respondent No.2. I have also heard the respondent No.2 – complainant, who is present before this Court. Learned advocate, Mr. Bhavik Shah identifies respondent No.2 and confirms correctness and genuineness of the affidavit filed by him. 5. When the matter is called out, learned advocates appearing for the parties have submitted that now the dispute is amicably settled between the parties and, therefore, the respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit of complainant-Mr.Pankajbhai Prajapati, wherein, it is stated that because of the intervention of the elderly people of the society amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties. Upon making inquiry, the respondent no.2, who is present before this Court, has stated that he has settled the dispute with the present applicant and, therefore, if the impugned FIR is quashed, he has no objection. 6. Upon making inquiry, the respondent no.2, who is present before this Court, has stated that he has settled the dispute with the present applicant and, therefore, if the impugned FIR is quashed, he has no objection. 6. Therefore since now, the dispute with reference to the impugned FIR is settled and resolved by and between parties, which is confirmed by the original complainant through learned advocate, the trial would be futile and any further continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned APP has opposed the application and submitted that looking to averments made in the FIR, complaint may not be quashed. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present case as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31 , Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law and Court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code. 9. Resultantly, this application is allowed. FIR being II - C.R.No. 187 of 2014 registered with B-Division Police Station, District :- Patan filed against present applicants is hereby quashed and set aside and all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. 10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. ORDER IN R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 625 of 2014 1. 10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. ORDER IN R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 625 of 2014 1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR being II - C.R.No. 3061 of 2013 registered with Gadh Police Station, District :- Banaskantha for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 507 of the Indian Penal Code and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicants. 2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the present application is taken up for final disposal today. 3. The impugned F.I.R. was filed on 05.07.2014. Complainant viz. Pankajbhai Prajapati has alleged that when he was doing some machinery work in the Eastern Europe around two and half years, he talked about the same to one Mr. Mitalbhai and thereafter, he, Mitalbhai, one Samirbhai and Parikshitbhai went to Thailand and were cheated at Thailand and they had realized that they have been cheated and their file for going to Canada from Thailand could not be prepared. Hence, those accused persons blamed the complainant for that and when the complainant was sitting in his office on 26.04.2013, accused persons came their and demanded the money and beaten him alleging that he could not fulfill his promise to send them Canada and therefore, the complainant registered the F.I.R. in question. 4. Heard learned advocate, Mr.Dipen F. Chaudhari for the applicants, learned APP Mr.Soham Joshi for respondent-State and Mr. Bhavik Shah for learned advocate Mr.M.B. Rana for respondent No.2. I have also heard the respondent No.2 – complainant, who is present before this Court. Learned advocate, Mr. Bhavik Shah identifies respondent No.2 and confirms correctness and genuineness of the affidavit filed by him. 5. When the matter is called out, learned advocates appearing for the parties have submitted that now the dispute is amicably settled between the parties and, therefore, the respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit of complainant-Mr.Pankajbhai Prajapati, wherein, it is stated that because of the intervention of the elderly people of the society amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties. Upon making inquiry, the respondent no.2, who is present before this Court, he has confirmed the fact that the compromise is arrived at between the parties and he has no grudge against the present applicants and, therefore, if the impugned FIR is quashed, he has no objection. 6. Therefore since now, the dispute with reference to the impugned FIR is settled and resolved by and between parties, which is confirmed by the original complainant through learned advocate, the trial would be futile and any further continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned APP has opposed the application and submitted that looking to averments made in the FIR, complaint may not be quashed. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present case as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31 , Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law and Court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code. 9. Resultantly, this application is allowed. FIR being II - C.R.No. 3061 of 2013 registered with Gadh Police Station, District :- Banaskantha filed against present applicants is hereby quashed and set aside and all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. 10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Order in CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2019 In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Order in CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2019 In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 625 of 2014 In view of the disposal of the main matter, the present Application stands disposed of.