Gujarat High Court
Sanjaykumar Rampal Ravat vs State Of Gujarat on 22 January, 2021
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
R/CR.MA/348/2021 ORDER
IN THEHIGHCOURTOF GUJARATAT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINALMISC.APPLICATIONNO. 348 of 2021
==========================================================================
SANJAYKUMARRAMPALRAVAT
Versus
STATEOF GUJARAT
======================================================================
Appearance:
MS SUNEETAR SHUKLA(5574)for the Applicant(s)No. 1
T J WAGHELA(7501)for the Applicant(s)No. 1
for the Respondent(s)No. 2
MS. MAITHILIMEHTAADDL.PUBLICPROSECUTOR(2)for the Respondent(s)No. 1
===========================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date: 22/01/2021
ORALORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Suneeta R. Shukla for the
applicant, who at the outset submits that the matter is settled
between the parties and learned Advocate Ms. Bharati Malhotra may
be permitted to join the meeting along with the complainant-
Ramprakash Balakram Rajput.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta
waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent no.1 and learned
Advocate Ms. Bharati Malhotra waives service of Rule on behalf of
the respondent no.2- original complainant.
3. Learned Advocate Ms. Bharati Malhotra is permitted to file her
vakalatnama on behalf of the original-complainant.
4. By way present application, the applicant prays for quashing
R/CR.MA/348/2021 ORDER
of the complaint bearing CR. No. 11191008200035, registered with
Chandkheda Police Station on 16.01.2020 for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467,468, 471 and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code.
5. Learned Advocate Ms. Shukla for the applicant, submits that
after filing of the complaint, which was on account of
misunderstanding, the dispute is settled between the applicant and
the respondent no.2. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served,
if the complaint is not quashed. He submits that the complaint be
quashed against the present applicant.
6. Learned APP Ms. 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. Learned Advocate Ms. Malhotra submits that an affidavit
confirming about the settlement is filed by the complainant and she
has identified the complainant Ramprakash Balakram Rajput who
upon inquiry by this Court has confirmed that the matter is settled
between the applicants and the complainant. The complainant
further submits that he would not have any objections if the
complaint is quashed.
8. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective
parties and more particularly, considering the affidavit filed by
the original complainant on 20.12.2020 and also considering
the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012)
10SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab,
R/CR.MA/348/2021 ORDER
reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs.
Cenral Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009
(1) GLH 31, Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in
2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. Sate of
Punajb & 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 an further.
9. In view of the discussions and observations above, criminal
complaint bearing CR. No. 11191008200035, registered with
Chandkheda Police Station on 16.01.2020 for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467,468, 471 and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code qua the present applicant is hereby
quashed.
10. Rule is made absolute. Registry is directed to communicate
this order to the concerned Police station through E-mail
immediately.
(NIKHILS. KARIEL,J)
MARYVADAKKAN
