Gujarat High Court
Sanjiv @ Sanjay Trikambhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 28 January, 2021
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
R/CR.MA/379/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 379 of 2021
============================================
SANJIV @ SANJAY TRIKAMBHAI BABHANIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
============================================
Appearance:
HIMANSHI R BALODI(8919) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MH SHEKHAWAT(7194) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MAHITOSH U SINGH(7015) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS SHRUTI PATHAK ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 28/01/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. M.H. Shekhawat for the applicant,
learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak for the respondent No.1 - State and learned
Advocate Shri Mahitosh U. Singh for the respondent No.2.
2. Rule. Learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak waives service of Rule for the
respondent No.1 - State and learned Advocate Shri Mahitosh U. Singh
waives service of Rule for the respondent No.2.
3. By way of present application, the applicant prays for quashing of the
complaint being Part - A I - C.R. No.11210046201554 of 2020 registered
with Punagam Police Station, Dist. Surat City dated 07.11.2020 for the
offences under Sections 436, 427, 294(a), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code.
R/CR.MA/379/2021 ORDER
4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that pursuant to the
filing of the complaint, due to intervention of the relatives and friend, the
dispute is resolved. Under such circumstances, learned Advocate submits
that no fruitful purpose would be served, if the complaint is not quashed
against the applicant.
5. Learned Advocate for the complainant reiterates the submission
made by the learned Advocate for the applicant. He further submits that the
complainant has filed affidavit to that effect. Learned Advocate further
seeks permission to join the complainant - Naranbhai Ranchoodbhai
Baldaniya, who is present in his office, in the meeting. Permission is granted.
Learned Advocate Mr. Singh has identified the complainant. Upon
joining the meeting and on inquiry by this Court, he confirms the fact of
settlement and he further confirms that he would not have any objection, if
the complaint is quashed.
6. Learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak strongly opposed the present
application and she further submits that the offences committed by the
applicants are serious in nature and therefore, no indulgence may be shown
towards the applicant by this Court.
7. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and more
particularly, considering the affidavit filed by the original complainant on
29.12.2020 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, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central 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. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in
R/CR.MA/379/2021 ORDER
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.
8. In view of the discussions and observations above, the criminal
complaint Part - A I - C.R. No.11210046201554 of 2020 registered with
Punagam Police Station, Dist. Surat City dated 07.11.2020 for the offences
under Sections 436, 427, 294(a), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code is
hereby quashed and set aside qua the present applicant.
Rule is made absolute. Registry is directed to communicate this order
to the concerned Police Station through Email immediately.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Y.N. VYAS
