CR.MA/11420/2004 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 11420 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= MR.KHODU R. IRANI & 1 - Applicant(s) Versus SHRI RAVINDRA MANILAL SHAH & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JB PARDIWALA for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. MR AJAY R MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 1, MR NV GANDHI for Respondent(s) : 1, MR DIPEN DESAI, APP for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 12/10/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Learned advocate Mr. Pardiwala for the applicants original accused and Mr. Gandhi for CR.MA/11420/2004 2/2 JUDGMENT the original complainant jointly submit that the issues have been settled between the parties and they therefore, pray for a formal order of quashing of the complaint bearing Criminal Case No. 29/2003 filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari. 2. I have also heard learned APP Shri Dipen Desai for the State. 3. Counsel for the accused as well as complainant produced on record a joint pursis in which it is stated inter-alia that complainant does not wish to proceed further with the above-mentioned case and they therefore, pray that complaint be quashed. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and also having perused the complaint in question, which was a private complaint, in peculiar facts of the case and in view of the developments noted above, the complaint is quashed. 5. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute (Akil Kureshi,J.) (raghu)