CR.MA/540320/2002 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 5403 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA ========================================= 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 ? ========================================= BIPINBHAI NANALAL SHAH & ORS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR ========================================= Appearance : MR CHETAN K PANDYA for Applicants No. 1 - 5. MR LB DABHI, APP for Respondent No. 1 MR RJ GOSWAMI for Respondent No. 2 ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA Date : 25/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1 This application is preferred by the accused to quash and set aside the First Information Report, being CR No. I-412/2002, registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabd, and in the alternative, to CR.MA/540320/2002 2/5 JUDGMENT quash the offence registered under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code in the said FIR. 2 As per the brief facts of the case, the present respondent No.2 - Babubhai Gordhandas Bhavsar, gave an First Information Report on 21st of June 2002, at 24.00 hours, before Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, that on that day, at about 9'O clock, when his son Minesh, wife of Minesh and daughter of Minesh were present at their house, situated at 14, Shaileshpark Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Near Kashiram Hall, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad, and their neighbour Suman Pandya, his wife Rashmiben also were sitting in the house of the complainant, present petitioners including Secretary Mr. B.N. Shah of the Society along with 8 to 10 persons came to the residence of the complainant with bulldozer and demolished a wall near his residence. Complainant and his relatives attempted to restrain the said bulldozer and upon that the present petitioners attacked the complainant and his son Minesh. Husband of Kinnariben - Nihirbhai H Parikh gave a blow of pipe on the head of Minesh while Manharbhai Kalidas Modi and Bipinbhai Nanalal Shah gave blows and fists on the abdomen of the complainant. Minesh was immediately shifted to the hospital of Dr. Bharat Panchal. CR.MA/540320/2002 3/5 JUDGMENT 3 The investigation was in process. In the mean time, on 6th of August, 2002, the complainant and his son on one side and Kinnari, husband of Kinnari – Nihir Parikh, Shri Manhar Modi and Shri B.N. Shah on the other side, came to a settlement between the parties, which is produced at Annexure-B to the petition. It was understood between the parties that though the complaint came to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, but no grievous hurt was caused to Minesh, and that at the most, the offence was committed of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, the parties compounded the offence and withdraw the complaint in question. 4 Learned Advocate Mr. Chetan K. Pandya for the petitioners, learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi for respondent No.1 State and learned Advocate Mr. R.J. Goswami for respondent No.2 original complainant were heard in detail. 5 Learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Chetan K. Pandya submitted that, in fact, the complaint came to be filed with a view to prevent illegal construction, which is not removed. The injured was admitted to the hospital only for three/four days. It is, in fact, no grievous hurt was caused to him, and at the most, the offence was falling under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. There was a dispute in CR.MA/540320/2002 4/5 JUDGMENT regard to civil nature, for which the suits are also pending and when the parties have compromised about the incident and they are staying as good neighbours and it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the complaint. 6 Learned Advocate Mr. R.J. Goswami appearing for the respondent No.2 original complainant has no objection for quashing the complaint as he also submits that the parties have compromised as per the Understanding produced on record as Annexure-B and now there is no cause of dispute between the parties and they are staying peacefully. 7 Though compromise between the parties during investigation may not be a ground for quashing an FIR filed before the police. However, in peculiar facts of this case, wherein the dispute arose between a member of society and other members, including Secretary, for some illegal construction, and when parties have come to an understanding between them in shape of compromise, it would be in the interest of advancing justice, to quash the complaint instead of relegating the parties to the trial court for recording of compromise and to follow necessary procedure. 8 In view of above, when there is no cause of dispute and CR.MA/540320/2002 5/5 JUDGMENT parties have compromised among themselves and have admitted that there is no injury, which constitutes an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, the petition deserves to be allowed in the peculiar facts of this case. 9 In view of above, this Application is allowed. First Information Report being CR No. I-412 if 2002, registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, on 21st of June, 2002, by present respondent No.2, is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. However, this order is passed in peculiar fact and circumstances of this case and could be not be construed as precedent. (J. R. VORA, J.) pnnair