CR.MA/4895/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 4895 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 ? ========================================================= BABARSINH GANPATSINH CHAUHAN & ORS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR ========================================================= Appearance : MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Applicants:1-10 MR KP RAVAL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent:1 MR M.G.PANDYA for Respondent:2 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 16/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr.K.P.Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1-State of Gujarat and Mr.M.G.Pandya, learned advocate waives service of CR.MA/4895/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2-original complainant. 2. Having regard to the facts of the case, by consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today. 3. The respondent No.2 herein had lodged a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Savli being Inquiry Case No.1 of 2007. By an order dated 11th December, 2007, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Savli had directed investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('Cr.P.C.') pursuant to which the same was registered as Savli Police Station M.Case No.1 of 2007. 4. It appears that, subsequently the parties have settled the disputes between them and the respondent No.2-the complainant has made an affidavit dated 24th March, 2008, wherein he has stated that on account of intervention of the people of his community, the matter is resolved amicably. That, after investigation was ordered by the Court, the respondent No.2 was under the impression that since the other lands, which are not in the will, are also likely to be disturbed, he had filed the complaint. However, he has stated that he has no grievance or ill-will against the accused and has no objection if the prosecution is put to an end. 5. In the present proceedings also, the respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 15th April, 2008 CR.MA/4895/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT wherein he has stated that he had filed the complaint in haste. That the parties have willingly agreed with the legality of the will is not in question and the effect of the will is to be given as per its logical end. That there is no ill-will or dispute between the parties and therefore, this Court may quash the proceedings. 6. Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that considering the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the disputes between them, in the light of the decisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that when the parties have amicably settled the disputes between them, this Court should exercise its inherent power and quash the complaint in the interest of justice. It is submitted that as the parties have settled the disputes between them, continuation of proceedings would be an exercise of futility and would amount to abuse of the process of Court. It is, accordingly, urged that the complaint in question be quashed. 7. Mr.M.G.Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent No.2-original complainant has reiterated the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner. On instructions of the complainant who is present before the Court, it is stated that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed. Both the learned advocates have jointly submitted that the complaint in question be quashed in the interest of justice. CR.MA/4895/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT 8. It is settled legal position as enunciated by this Court as well as by the Apex Court and other High Courts that when the parties have amicably settled the disputes between them, the High Court upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the complaint if it is of the view that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 9. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid settled legal position, it is an undisputed position that the parties to the dispute have amicably settled the dispute between them. The respondent No.2-original complainant has no grievance against the present petitioners and has himself urged that the complaint be quashed in the interest of justice. In the circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served if the proceedings are permitted to continue. Besides, chances of an ultimate conviction are also bleak. This is, therefore, a fit case for this Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. 10.For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The complaint being Savli Police Station M.Case No.1 of 2007 registered pursuant to Criminal Case No.1 of 2007 filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Savli, is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. CR.MA/4895/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT (H.N.DEVANI, J.) Amit/-