CR.MA/15320/2007 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 15320 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 ? ========================================= === DAMODAR MAMAN PANDIR & OTHERS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER ========================================= === Appearance : MR SUNIL C PATEL for the Applicants MR MENGDEY, APP for the Respondent No.1 MR P.D. PIPUTAK, Party-in-Person ========================================= === CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 10/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT CR.MA/15320/2007 2/5 JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. M.R. Mengdey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1, State of Gujarat and respondent No.2 Mr. Pradipbhai Dattatreya Piputak, who appears in person, waives service of notice of Rule. 2. By this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the complaint being Umargam Police Station I-C.R. No. 94/06. 3. Having regard to the facts of the case, with the consent of learned advocates for the parties as well as respondent No.2 Mr. Pradipbhai Dattatreya Piputak, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 4. The facts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No.2 herein had lodged the First Information Report before the Umargam Police Station vide I – C.R. No.94 of 2006 for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It is the case of the applicants in the application that pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, the applicants had been arrested by the police. Subsequently, the applicants had preferred bail application before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umargam who by his order dated 2nd November, 2006 rejected the said application. Thereafter, upon charge sheet being filed, the applicants preferred an application for bail before the learned Sessions Court, Valsad being Criminal Miscellaneous CR.MA/15320/2007 3/5 JUDGMENT Application No.417 of 2006. The aforesaid application was decided by the learned Judge by an order dated 28th December, 2006, whereby the applicants were released on bail subject to certain conditions. Under one of the conditions viz. Condition No.5, the applicants were directed that the alleged sale deed should be cancelled and the expenditure of the same should be borne by the applicants; that the applicants would have to make fencing surrounding the land in question at the cost of the applicants. 6. It is further the case of the applicants that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the applicants had executed a document for cancellation of sale deed on 12th January, 2007, which was duly registered before the office of the Sub Registrar, Paldi. It is further submitted that during the course of the aforesaid proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between the applicant No.3 Sachin Champaklal Machhi and Trustee of Shri Vaman Raghunath Shinde Trust. It is the case of the applicants that in view of the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge while granting bail, which have been duly complied with by the applicants, no dispute remains between the parties and therefore, the impugned complaint is required to be quashed. 7. Learned advocate for the applicants has drawn attention to the compromise deed dated 20th October, 2006, Annexure D to the petition and more particularly to the contents of the penultimate paragraph thereto, wherein it is specifically recorded that the second party would give CR.MA/15320/2007 4/5 JUDGMENT its consent for quashing the First Information Report dated 10th October, 2006 lodged by the second party. 8. The respondent No.2 Mr. Pradipbhai Dattatreya Piputak is present before the Court and the Court has ascertained the veracity of the averments made in the petition from him and he has categorically stated that he has given his consent for quashing the complaint in question. 9. Mr. M.R. Mengdey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also been heard by this Court. In the background of the facts noted above, more particularly, in view of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad has in his order dated 28th December, 2006 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.417 of 2006 recorded the compromise arrived at between the parties and accordingly directed the applicants to cancel the offending document and returned the disputed land to the Trust after constructing a fencing around the same., which has duly been complied with by the applicants, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code. 10.In the above view of the matter, when the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and no dispute survives between the parties, and more particularly considering the nature of dispute between the parties, no fruitful purpose would be served if the criminal investigation is permitted to be continued. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the First Information Report in question. CR.MA/15320/2007 5/5 JUDGMENT 11.For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The First Information Report being Umargam Police Station I-C.R. No. 94/06 is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. shekhar/- (H.N.DEVANI, J.)