CR.MA/3849/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 3849 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 ? ========================================= RAMCHNADRA BHOLABHAI RAMI & OTHERS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 ANOTHER ========================================= Appearance : MR DIPEN K DAVE for the Petitioners MR KP RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent No. 1 MR LAXMANSINH M ZALA for Respondent No.2 ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 08/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The facts of the case stated briefly are that the Pragati Co- operative Bank Limited (respondent No.2 herein) had lodged a First Information Report before the Kalupur Police Station vide I C.R. No. 206/04 alleging that the petitioners had produced false and fabricated documents for availing of a loan of Rs.5 lacs from the Bank and had not CR.MA/3849/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT repaid the sum of Rs.8,79,171.33 due and payable to the Bank and thereby committed the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Upon culmination of the investigation, charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer and the proceedings are pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.16, Ahmedabad vide Criminal Case No.613 of 2005. According to the petitioners, they have repaid the entire amount due and payable to the respondent No.2 Bank, pursuant to which, the Bank has issued a no due certificate on 20th March, 2006, which is annexed as Annexure C to the petition. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the complainant Bank, the complainant and other officers of the Bank are no longer interested in the compliant and therefore, do not attend the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. That in the circumstances, the petitioners are required to attend the Court on all dates when the matter is fixed. However, in absence of the officers of the respondent Bank, the case is not proceeding any further. It is submitted that in the circumstances, when the Bank is no longer interested in pursuing the complaint, the First Information Report in question deserves to be quashed. 2. Mr. Dipen K. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioners have paid all the dues of the Bank, the grievance of the respondent No.2 – original complainant no longer survives, hence the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the matter any further, due to which, the proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are unnecessarily dragged on. It is submitted that in the circumstances, when the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the complaint any further, continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioners is an abuse of the process of Court. CR.MA/3849/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT 3. In response to the issuance of Rule in the matter, the respondent No.2 Bank has filed appearance through learned advocate Mr. L.M. Zala. The learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has reiterated the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioners. He has submitted that as the dues of the Bank are fully repaid, the Bank is no longer interested in pursuing the complaint any further and has no objection if the complaint in question is quashed. 4. This Court in the case of Rajeshbhai Natwarlal Agrawal and Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 GLH 504 has, after considering various decisions on the issue, held that it would not be just and proper nor it would be in the interest of justice to compel the parties to face trial despite there being settlement. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Inderjitsinh v. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Anr. III (2006) CCR 24 has held that continuation of proceedings will be an exercise in futility where the parties have amicably settled the dispute and have compromised the matter. 5. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the decisions cited hereinabove, the parties to the dispute have settled the matter between them. Evidently, the Bank is no longer interested in pursuing the complaint any further, which has resulted into the petitioners being put to undue harassment, as on behalf of the complainant, nobody remains present before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. In the circumstances, the ends of justice would best be served if the complaint in question is quashed. This is therefore, a fit case for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code, with a view to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. CR.MA/3849/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT 6. For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The First Information Report being Kalupur Police Station I C.R. No. 206/04 as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case No.613 of 2005 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.16, Ahmedabad, are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. (H.N.DEVANI, J.) shekhar/-