Gujarat High Court
Bhaveshbhai Chimanbhai Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat on 26 February, 2021
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
R/CR.MA/19564/2020 ORDER
IN THEHIGHCOURTOF GUJARATAT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINALMISC.APPLICATIONNO. 19564of 2020
==============================================================================
BHAVESHBHAICHIMANBHAIVAGHELA
Versus
STATEOF GUJARAT
==============================================================================
Appearance:
DHRUVTOLIYA(9249)for the Applicant(s)No. 1
MRRUCHITJ VYAS(10687)for the Respondent(s)No. 2
MS MAITHILID MEHTA,ADDITIONALPUBLICPROSECUTOR(2)for the Respondent(s)No.
1
==============================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date: 26/02/2021
ORALORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Dhruv Toliya for the applicant,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili D. Mehta for the
respondent No.1 - State and learned Advocate Mr. Ruchit J.
Vyas for the respondent No.2.
2. By way of present application, the applicant prays for quashing of
the complaint being C.R. No.11198047201030 of 2020 registered
with Shihor Police Station, Bhavnagar dated 27.11.2020 for the
offences under Sections 406, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicant and learned Advocate for the
complainant submit that during the pendency of the present
application, the matter is settled between the parties and the
complainant would not have any objection, if the complaint is
quashed. Learned Advocate for the complainant submits that the
R/CR.MA/19564/2020 ORDER
complainant has already filed an affidavit to this regard. He
submits that the complainant maybe permitted to join the
meeting. Permission is granted.
4. Learned Advocate for the complainant has identified the
complainant. The complainant - Dineshbhai Chimanbhai Vaghela
has joined the meeting and upon inquiry by this Court, he
confirms the fact of settlement.
5. Both the learned Advocates for the parties submit that no fruitful
purpose would be served, if the complaint is not quashed against
the applicant herein.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili D. Mehta
strongly opposed the quashing of the complaint and she further
submits that the offences committed by the applicants are serious
in nature and therefore, no indulgence may be shown.
7. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and
more particularly, considering the affidavit filed by the original
complainant on 14.12.2020 and also considering the judgments
of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan
Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582,
Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190
and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported
in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), this Court is of the opinion that no
fruitful purpose would be served, if the complaint is proceeded
any further.
R/CR.MA/19564/2020 ORDER
8. In view of the discussions and observations above, the criminal
complaint being C.R. No.11198047201030 of 2020 registered
with Shihor Police Station, Bhavnagar dated 27.11.2020 for the
offences under Sections 406, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal
Code and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is
hereby quashed and set aside qua the present applicant.
9. Rule is made absolute. Registry is directed to communicate this
order to the concerned Police Station through Email immediately.
Sd/-
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
CAROLINE
