CR.MA/1671/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 1671 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 ? ===================================================== JASABHAI DEVABHAI BABAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ===================================================== Appearance : MRS SHILPA R SHAH for Applicant:1 MR LB DABHI ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent:1 MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Respondent:2 ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI CR.MA/1671/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT Date : 20/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('the Code'), the petitioner seeks quashment of criminal complaint lodged before Bavla Police Station being M.Case No.2 of 2007. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondent No.2-complainant had lodged a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dholka pursuant to which the learned Judicial Magistrate had directed investigation by the police under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code and the same was registered as M.Case No.2 of 2007. 3. Heard Ms.Shilpa Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent No.1- state of Gujarat and Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for respondent No.2-original CR.MA/1671/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT complainant. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have amicably settled the matter pursuant to which by the consent of the parties, the disputed sale-deed has been cancelled. It is accordingly submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, no fruitful purpose would be served if the investigation is permitted to continue. 5. In response to the issuance of Notice in the matter, the respondent No.2-complainant has appeared through Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate who has tendered an affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner and the complainant are very close family members and have settled the matter between them and arrived a full and final compromise. It is categorically averred that he is no longer interested in proceeding further with the aforesaid criminal case which he had CR.MA/1671/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dholka, which was thereafter transferred to Bavla Police Station. It is stated that at his behest a Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No.114 of 2007 had been filed before the learned Additional Civil Judge, Dholka. That the suit was allowed by the learned Civil Judge and the disputed sale-deed stands cancelled. Thus, he has not suffered any financial loss. 6. 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. CR.MA/1671/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT 7. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the decisions cited hereinabove, it is an undisputed position that parties have amicably settled the dispute between them. In the circumstances, continuation of investigation would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the interest of justice would best be served if the complaint in question is quashed. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed. M.Case No.2 of 2007 registered with Bavla Police Station and proceedings thereto are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. (H.N.DEVANI, J.) Amit/-