CR.MA/889/1984 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 889 of 1984 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 ? ========================================= = INDRAVADAN JAGJIVANDAS - Applicant(s) Versus MOHMAD HUSSAIN ALIMOHMAD & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================= = Appearance : MR SHIRISH JOSHI for Applicant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 2, MR LB DABHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 10/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT CR.MA/889/1984 2/5 JUDGMENT 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1 of 1984 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kalawad. 2. The facts giving rise to the present case are that the respondent No.1 lodged a complaint on 21st February, 1984 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalawad being Criminal Case No.1 of 1984 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 114, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner and two others. The main grievance raised in the complaint was regarding non- payment of dues of the complainant in respect of the vehicle being Truck No.GRT 5532. 3. Pursuant to the filing of the present application, Notice had been issued and interim relief had been granted, whereby the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1 of 1984 were stayed. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has tendered an affidavit dated 26th February, 2008 made by the petitioner wherein it is stated that a settlement has been arrived at in Summary Suit No.2003 of 1984 before the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad which was filed by Lalvani Finance Corporation against Limbarsingh Sardar, present respondent No.1 and the CR.MA/889/1984 3/5 JUDGMENT present petitioner in respect of the very truck which is the subject matter of the complaint. According to the said settlement which is signed by all concerned, the petitioner had to make payment by installments. Since the total amount agreed to be paid was only Rs.50,000/-, according to the settlement, the petitioner alone had to pay the aforesaid amount. Rs.25,000/- were to be paid after the truck was transferred in the name of the petitioner and the remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- was to be paid after having received the insurance claim from the United Indian Assurance Company etc. A copy of the settlement dated 23rd May, 1986 is annexed to the said affidavit. 5. Mr.Baiju Joshi, learned advocate for Mr.Shirish Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the settlement dated 23rd May, 1986 and more particularly, to the contents of paragraph No.5 thereof, wherein it is agreed that, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, all civil and criminal suits in respect of Truck No.GRT 5532 shall, be withdrawn, and that thereafter, no complaint or suit remains pending in respect of the said truck. It is submitted that, in view of the settlement, the respondent No.1 was bound to withdraw the said complaint. It is submitted that the petitioner has declared on oath that he has adhered to the settlement and has made payment as per the CR.MA/889/1984 4/5 JUDGMENT settlement. That there is no information as to the status of the criminal complaint filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalawad, but according to clause (5) of the settlement, the respondent No.1 was bound to withdraw the said complaint, and accordingly, he must have withdrawn the same. It is, accordingly, submitted that, in view of the aforesaid, the complaint in question is required to be quashed, in the interest of justice. 6. This Court has also heard Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. This is an old application of the year 1984 in which interim relief is operating since June, 1984. Subsequently, as is apparent from the settlement dated 1st May, 1986 arrived at between the parties to the dispute, the parties have amicably settled the matter. The petitioner has stated on oath that he has abided by the settlement and has duly paid the amount payable under the settlement. In the circumstances, the respondent No.1 – original complainant is also bound by the terms of the settlement and therefore, is required to withdraw his complaint. In the circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served if the proceedings pursuant to the complaint in question are permitted to continue, hence, the complaint in question is required to be quashed in the interest of justice. CR.MA/889/1984 5/5 JUDGMENT 8. It is settled law that where parties have amicably settled the matter, and chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak, this Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code and quash the complaint. This is, therefore, a fit case for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No.1 of 1984 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalawad (Annexure “B”) are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. [HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar*