Gujarat High CourtMaheshbhai Maganbhai Patel & 6 vs State Of Gujarat & on 6 July, 2017Author:A.J.DesaiBench:A.J.DesaiR/SCR.A/2392/2017                                                 ORDER



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 2392 of 2017

         ==========================================================
                   MAHESHBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL & 6....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR SHAILESH R PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 7
         VIRAL K SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 7
         MR. RAJ A TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         MR RAKESH PATEL, LD.ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
         Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

                                       Date : 06/07/2017


                                        ORAL ORDER1.           Mr.Tatvdeep Jani, learned advocate states that he
         has instruction to appear on behalf of respondent No.2 -
         original complainant and shall file his appearance at the
         earliest. He has identified the original complainant, who is
         present in the Court and states that the matter is settled
         between the parties.2.           With       the   consent         of    the       learned          advocates
         appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the matter is
         taken up for final hearing today.3.           Rule. Mr.Rakesh Patel, learned Additional Public
         Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf respondent No.1 -
         State of Gujarat and Mr.Tatvdeep Jani, learned advocatePage 1 of 4HC-NIC                                   Page 1 of 4        Created On Sun Jul 23 16:32:48 IST 2017
                  R/SCR.A/2392/2017                                            ORDER



         waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2 - original
         complainant.4.          By way of the present application underSection
         482of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have
         prayed to quash the FIR being C.R.No.I- 51 of 2004 lodged
         with DCB Police Station, Surat City for the offence punishable
         undersections 406,409,420,467,468,471, 120B,34,114,
         etc. of theIndian Penal Codeas well as all the consequential
         proceedings arising from the said FIR.5.          Mr.Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
         the original complainant has identified original complainant,
         who is working with the bank and who is present in the Court
         and who has filed Affidavit dated 27/03/2017, which is taken
         on the record. It appears from the Affidavit that compromise
         has been arrived at between the parties and original
         complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.6.          Learned advocate appearing for the applicants
         placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
         case ofGian Singh versus State of Punjab & Anr.reported
         in 2012(10)SCC 303 as well as in the case of Jitendra
         Raghuvanshi & Ors. V/s. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr.
         reported in [2013(3)] 54 (3) G.L.R 1875 and submitted that
         since the matter is settled between the parties, there is no
         need to proceed further with the trial.It is the case of applicants that now there is no
         dispute between the applicants and original complainant.7.          Mr.Rakesh Patel, learned APP                   has opposed thisPage 2 of 4HC-NIC                               Page 2 of 4      Created On Sun Jul 23 16:32:48 IST 2017
                 R/SCR.A/2392/2017                                            ORDER



         application and submitted that considering the nature and
         gravity of the offence, the impugned FIR may not be quashed.8.         I have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf
         of the respective parties and perused the impugned FIR as
         well as Affidavit filed by the original complainant dated
         27/03/2017, which reads as under:"I, Manoj Nagindas Shah, respondent No.2,
                    original complainant, adult, residing at 46,
                    Suryapur Society, Rander Road, Surat do hereby
                    solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:1.    I say and submit that I am the complainant
                    of the complaint being C.R.No.I 51 of 2004
                    registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Surat for the
                    offences punishable undersections 406,409,420,467,468,471,120-B,34and114of the Indian
                    Penal Code.2.    I respectfully submit that in pursuance of
                    the aforesaid complaint, at the instance of
                    mediators, settlement has been arrived at with
                    the accused persons i.e. present petitioners
                    outside the court and therefore, I do not want to
                    proceed further with above mentioned complaint.3.    I respectfully submit that the complaint had
                    been filed with some misunderstanding and in
                    haste, but in fact, the accused persons/
                    petitioners have not committed any offence as
                    alleged. However, I say that we, the parties have
                    fully settled account and bank has receive the
                    amount and now nothing remains due from the
                    petitioners and the bank has also issued No Due
                    Certificate to the petitioners and thus dispute
                    have been settled amicably, outside the court.4.  I say that the dispute between the
                    complainant and the petitioners is of civil nature
                    and the same has been settled by way of
                    compromise and therefore, the complaint isPage 3 of 4HC-NIC                              Page 3 of 4      Created On Sun Jul 23 16:32:48 IST 2017
                   R/SCR.A/2392/2017                                            ORDER



                      required to be quashed and set aside.5.    I say that I do not have any objection if the
                      complaint filed by me is quashed and set aside by
                      this Honourable Court in exercise of its inherent
                      power undersection 482of the Code of Criminal
                      Procedure,1973.Solemnly affirmed on this 27th day of
                      March,2017 at Surat."9.           It appears from the Affidavit that the applicants
         and respondent No.2 - original complainant have jointly
         arrived at compromise and the original complainant has no
         grievance against the applicants and the matter is amicably
         settled between the parties.10.          Considering the overall facts and circumstances of
         the case and considering the fact that the dispute between the
         parties is now resolved, the present application is allowed.
         The FIR being C.R.No.I- 51 of 2004 lodged with DCB Police
         Station, Surat City for the offence punishable undersections
         406,409,420,467,468,471,120B,34,114, etc. of theIndian
         Penal Codeas well as all the consequential proceedings
         arising from the said FIR, are hereby quashed and set aside
         qua the applicants only. Rule is made absolute accordingly.Direct service is permitted.[A.J.DESAI, J.]

         *diptiPage 4 of 4HC-NIC                                Page 4 of 4      Created On Sun Jul 23 16:32:48 IST 2017