CR.MA/2484/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 2484 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 ? ========================================= = ATULBHAI BANSILAL SHAH & OTHERS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER ========================================= = Appearance : MR MITESH R AMIN for Applicant(s) : 1 - 3. MR LB DABHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, MR PRATIK B BAROT for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 29/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and Mr. Pratik B. Barot, learned advocate waives CR.MA/2484/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT service of notice of rule for respondent No.2. 2. Having regard to the facts of the present case, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today. 3. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Code) the petitioners have prayed to quash the complaint registered vide M.Case No.9/2007 at Ellisbridge Police Station and the proceedings pursuant thereto. 4. The facts of the present case stated briefly are that the respondent No.2 Mukeshbhai Karshanbhai Patel had lodged a complaint on 3rd December, 2007 in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.2, Ahmedabad City alleging commission of the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 506(1), 294(C) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The said complaint was registered as Inquiry Case No.78/07 and the learned Magistrate passed an order under section 156(3) of the Code directing the Police Inspector of Ellisbridge Police Station to carry out investigation in connection with the said complaint, which was registered as Ellisbridge Police Station, M.Case No.9/2007. The learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 have entered into a settlement agreement dated 4th January, 2008 by virtue of which, the transaction alleged in the complaint is totally and finally settled. In the agreement, it is recorded that the respondent No.2 has already received the amount of Rs.31 lacs by way of Demand Draft. Both the parties have agreed that the CR.MA/2484/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT transaction in respect of which the complaint has been lodged, is totally and finally settled by the concerned parties viz. petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has also agreed that he would withdraw the criminal complaint filed by him. It is submitted that in the circumstances, as the parties have amicably settled the matter, the complaint in question is required to be quashed in the interest of justice. 5. Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has tendered an affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record. In the said affidavit, it has been averred that in connection with the complaint in question, the respondent No.2 has amicably settled the matter with the petitioners and the dispute no longer survives. It is categorically averred that the respondent No.2 has received the disputed amount by way of pay slips from the petitioner No.1 and that the said facts have been incorporated in the settlement deed dated 4th January, 2008 entered into between him and the petitioner No.1. It is also stated that since the dispute in question has been resolved between the parties, it would be just and proper that the complaint in question and the proceedings pursuant thereto be quashed in the interest of justice. 6. The petitioners have placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Rajeshbhai Natwarlal Agrawal and Ors. V. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 GLH 504, wherein it has been held that it would not be just and proper or it would be in the interest of justice to compel the parties to face trial despite there being settlement. The petitioners have also placed CR.MA/2484/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT reliance upon a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Inderjitsinh V. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Anr, III (2006) CCR 24, wherein it has been held that continuation of proceedings will be an exercise in futility where the parties have amicably settled the dispute and have compromised the matter. 7. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the decisions cited hereinabove, this Court is of the view that as the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them, continuation of proceedings would result into abuse of the process of Court. Besides, the parties having been settled the matter, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak. In the circumstances, the ends of justice would best be met if the complaint in question is quashed. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The Criminal Complaint being M.Case No.9/07 registered with Ellisbridge Police Station and the proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (H.N.DEVANI, J.) shekhar/-