SCR.A/2456/2007 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2456 of 2007 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 ? ========================================================= PADMINIBEN HEMANTBHAI MAKATI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR ========================================================= Appearance : MR PR NANAVATI for Applicant:1 MR KP RAVAL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent:1 MR GAURANG K PATEL for Respondent:2 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 07/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this application, under Article 226 of the SCR.A/2456/2007 2/6 JUDGMENT Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code'),the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the Inquiry Case No.24 of 2003 and the process issued thereon, including Criminal M.Case No.1 of 2003 lodged before Karanj Police Station as well as the charge-sheet No.112 of 2004 submitted by the police qua the present petitioner. 2. The facts stated briefly are that the respondent No.2 herein had lodged the criminal complaint against the petitioner and two others before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.18, Ahmedabad, which was registered as Inquiry Case No.24 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Section 406 or 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad passed an order directing investigation through Shahpur Police Station under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code, which was registered as M.Case No.1 of 2003 with Karanj Police Station. 3. After the investigation was completed, it appears that the parties have settled the dispute between them and executed an agreement which was submitted before the police. However, SCR.A/2456/2007 3/6 JUDGMENT the police did not accept the said agreement and submitted charge-sheet before the concerned Court. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the complaint in question along with charge-sheet submitted thereon. 4. Mr.P.R.Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the compromise deed dated 10th January, 2005 (Annexure-D to the petition) and more particularly, to the contents of paragraph-2 thereof, wherein it is specifically recorded that the petitioner herein has paid the entire disputed amount to the complainant and the parties have amicably settled the matter. It is also specifically agreed that M.Case No.1 of 2007 shall be withdrawn. It is submitted that, in the circumstances, as the parties have amicably settled the matter, continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the complaint in question, would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 5. In response to the averments made in the petition, the respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 6th March, 2008. In the affidavit, it is specifically averred that the petitioner has paid all the dues that were payable to him and that no grievance survives SCR.A/2456/2007 4/6 JUDGMENT against the present petitioner. The respondent No.2 has admitted having executed the compromise deed dated 15th January, 2005 and has categorically averred that he has no objection if the petition is allowed by quashing the complaint in question. It is also stated that the whole issue was settled even before the charge-sheet was filed and when statement to that effect had been recorded and it was given to understand that summary will be filed by the Investigating Officer, however, subsequently a charge-sheet was filed. Mr.Gaurang Patel, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has reiterated what is stated in the affidavit and submitted that the respondent No.2 has no objection if the complaint is quashed. 6. Both the learned advocates for the parties have jointly prayed that the complaint 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) SCR.A/2456/2007 5/6 JUDGMENT 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, this Court is of the view that as the parties have amicably settled the matter, continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. Besides, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak. In the circumstances, the interest of justice would best be served if the complaint in question is quashed. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition, succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Inquiry Case No.24 of 2003 lodged before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.18, Ahmedabad, Criminal M Case No.1 of 2003 lodged before Karanj Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto, are hereby quashed. 10.Rule is made absolute accordingly. (H.N.DEVANI, J.) SCR.A/2456/2007 6/6 JUDGMENT Amit/-