CR.MA/3337/2004 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 3337 of 2004 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 ? ========================================= = SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD & ANR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR Appearance : MR AS VAKIL for Applicants MR AY KOGJE APP for Respondent No 1 MR RAJESH K DESAI for Respondent No. 2 ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA Date : 28/06/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT 1 Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Vakil for applicants, CR.MA/3337/2004 2/3 JUDGMENT learned APP Mr. A.Y. Kogje for respondent No.1 State and learned Advocate Mr. R.K. Desai for respondent No.2 – original complainant. 2 This petition is filed for quashing of Inquiry Case No. 65 of 2003 pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9, Ahmedabad, and the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 30th of September, 2003. The complaint came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code by respondent No.2 herein while the applicant is accused in the said case. 3 Learned Advocate for the applicant accused as well as learned Advocate for the complainant - respondent No.2 jointly make a statement that the dispute forming subject matter of the complaint between the applicant and the respondent No.2 original complainant is now amicably resolved. In Inquiry Case No. 65 of 2003 said purshis is also given by the complainant on 20th of March, 2006. It is further stated by learned Advocates that Civil Suit No. 2371 of 1998 between the parties was also withdrawn by respondent No.2 complainant. It is, therefore, submitted that the present complaint be quashed. CR.MA/3337/2004 3/3 JUDGMENT 4 In view of statements made by learned Advocates for the parties, this application now does not survive and stands disposed of. Rule is discharged. Ad interim relief stands vacated. (J. R. VORA, J.) pnnair