SCR.A/477/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 477 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= NIRAV MAYUR SHAH - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance : MS SEJAL H VYAS for Applicant(s) : 1, MR KP RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, MR VG DAVE for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 01/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), the petitioner has prayed to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No.2237 of 2007 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, SCR.A/477/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT Court No.4 at Ahmedabad arising out of charge sheet No.361 of 1998 dated 23rd November, 1998 in connection with the First Information Report registered vide Kagdapith Police Station I C.R. No. 442 of 1998 for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC against the present petitioner. 2. The respondent No.2 herein had lodged the aforesaid complaint against the present petitioner alleging commission of the offences referred to hereinabove. It appears that subsequently, the parties have settled the dispute between them and the same is reduced to writing by way of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 11th January, 2008, a copy whereof has been annexed along with this application. Under clause (3) of the said Memorandum of Understanding, the respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw all cases pending before any Court in India with regard to the transaction between the parties. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present application seeking quashment of the First Information Report in question and all proceedings arising therefrom. 3. Ms Sejal H. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the fact that the parties have settled the matter between them and the respondent No.2 has specifically agreed to withdraw the case against the petitioner, no fruitful purpose would be served if the proceedings against the petitioner are permitted to continue. It is submitted that in the circumstances, the complaint in question as well as all proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice. SCR.A/477/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT 4. In response to the Rule issued by this Court, Mr. V.G. Dave, learned advocate for the respondent No.2. has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and has reiterated the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted that in view of the Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between the parties, the First Information Report in question is required to be quashed. Both the learned advocates for the parties have therefore, jointly submitted that the First Information Report in question be quashed in the interest of justice. 5. This Court in the case of Rajeshbhai Natwarlal Agrawal and Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 GLH 504 has, after considering various decisions on the issue, held that it would not be just and proper nor it would be in the interest of justice to compel the parties to face trial despite there being settlement. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Inderjitsinh v. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Anr. III (2006) CCR 24 has held that continuation of proceedings will be an exercise in futility where the parties have amicably settled the dispute and have compromised the matter. 6. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the decisions cited hereinabove, considering the fact that the parties have settled the dispute between them, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting the proceedings to continue. In the circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Besides, in view of the compromise, chances of an ultimate conviction are also bleak. In the circumstances, the SCR.A/477/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT interest of justice would best be served if the complaint in question is quashed. This is therefore, a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Code. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The First Information Report being Kagdapith Police Station I C.R. No. 442 of 1998 and all proceedings emanating there from including Criminal Case No. 2237 of 2007 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.4 at Ahmedabad, are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (H.N.DEVANI, J.) shekhar/-