CR.MA/1190/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 1190 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 ? ========================================= SUNIL NATWARLAL PATEL & ANOTHER Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER =========================================A ppearance : MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE for the Applicants MR LB DABHI, APP for Respondent No. 1 MR BRIJESH LIMBACHIYA for Respondent No. 2, ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 02/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and Mr. Brijesh Limbachiya, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2. CR.MA/1190/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. Having regard to the facts of the case, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today. 3. By this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), the applicants seek quashment of the First Information Report being Athwa Police Station, Surat M.Case No.4/04 (inquiry case No.4/04) and all prior and subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto, qua the present applicants. 4. The respondent No.2 herein had lodged the aforesaid complaint against the applicants and four other accused persons alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, it appears that the parties have settled the dispute between them. Pursuant to the aforesaid settlement, four other co-accused being original accused No.2 to 5 had preferred application for quashing being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3197 of 2005 before this Court , wherein this Court by an order dated 21st September, 2005 had after considering the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in several decisions, quashed the complaint qua the applicants therein. This application has been filed by the remaining two accused persons for quashing the complaint in question on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 5. Heard Mr. H.A. Dave, learned advocate for the applicants, Mr. Brijesh Limbachiya, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. CR.MA/1190/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT 6. The learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute between the parties have been amicably settled, pursuant to which, in the case of other co- accused, the complaint in question has already been quashed, the present application is required to be allowed by quashing the complaint qua the present applicants. Mr. Limbachiya, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 does not dispute the aforesaid position. Both the learned advocates have jointly submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the proceedings in question be quashed in the interest of justice. 7. In view of the fact that the parties to the dispute have amicably settled the matter and more so, in view of the fact that this Court had in the case of four of the co-accused, already quashed the complaint in question, even on the ground of parity, the present application is required to be allowed by quashing the complaint qua the present applicants also. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The First Information Report being Athwa Police Station, Surat M.Case No.4/04 (Inquiry Case No.4/04) and all prior and subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto, qua the present applicants, are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. (H.N.DEVANI, J.) shekhar/-