CR.MA/1934/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 1934 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 ? ====================================== VINAYBHAI MANSUKHBHAI ANTANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER ====================================== Appearance : MR MOUSAM R YAGNIK for Applicant(s) : 1, MR KP RAVAL APP for Respondent(s) : 1, MR ZUBIN BHARDA for Respondent(s) : 2, ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 10/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT CR.MA/1934/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and Mr. Zubin Bharda, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. Having regard to the facts of the case, at the joint request of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today. 3. The facts giving rise to the present application are that the respondent No.2 herein lodged an First Information Report being Jetpur Taluka Police Station I C.R. No.0094/05 on 11th May, 2005 against the present applicant alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It appears that subsequently, the parties have settled the matter between them. Today, Mr. Bharda, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has placed on record an affidavit dated 8th March, 2008 made by Shri Shashikant Jagjivandas Chandrani, original complainant, wherein it is stated that he has lodged the above referred First Information Report. That thereafter, the parties have settled the matter, pursuant to which he has received a Demand Draft of Rs.84,000/- towards the amount due to him. It is categorically stated that in view of the aforesaid, he has no objection if the First Information Report is quashed. CR.MA/1934/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT 5. Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has stated that Mr. Khilan S. Chandrani, son of the original complainant is present before the Court and has identified the signature of the complainant in the affidavit. 6. In the background of the facts noted hereinabove, the learned advocates for the parties have jointly submitted that the First Information Report in question be quashed in the interest of justice. 7. 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. 8. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the decisions cited hereinabove, as the parties have amicably settled the matter, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Besides, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak. In the circumstances, the interest of justice would best be served if the First Information Report in question is quashed. CR.MA/1934/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT 9. For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The First Information Report being Jetpur Taluka Police Station I C.R. No.0094/05 is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 10.Liberty is reserved to the respondent No.2 to revive the complaint in case the Demand Draft in question is not honoured. (H.N.DEVANI, J.) shekhar/-