Bipinkumar Ghanshyamdas Sarada vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 748 Guj

        R/CR.MA/205/2021                                  ORDER



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 205 of 2021

==========================================================
                 BIPINKUMAR GHANSHYAMDAS SARADA
                               Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHAMMED K VOHRA(10709) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS.M.D. MEHTA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                           Date : 19/01/2021

                            ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Shri Mohammed K. Vhora for the applicants and learned APP Ms.M.D. Mehta for the respondent - State.

2. Learned Advocate Shri Vhora for the applicants submits that the learned Advocate Shri Hardik Dave has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent No.2 - original complainant. He may be permitted to join the meeting. Permission is granted. Learned Advocate Shri Hardik Dave is permitted to file his vakalatnama on behalf of the original complainant.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. Mehta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent - State and Learned Advocate Shri M.A.Chauhan waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2 - original complainant.

4. By way of this application, the applicants are praying for

R/CR.MA/205/2021 ORDER

quashing of the criminal complaint being C.R. No.I 438 of 2019 registered with Salabatpura Police Station, District:- Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 406,409,420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. At the outset, learned Advocate Shri Vhora submits that the dispute between the applicants and complainant has been settled. Learned Advocate for the applicants further submits that the matter is resolved between the parties and he further submits that no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the impugned criminal complaint to continue further and therefore, he submits that the same may be quashed by this Court.

6. Learned advocate Shri Hardik Dave for the respondent no.2 - original complainant submits that the respondent no.2 is present in the office of learned Advocate Shri Dharmesh Gandhi, at Surat and he requests to permit the learned Advocate Shri Gandhi to join the meeting alongwith the complainant. Permission is granted. Learned Advocate Mr.Gandhi identifies the complainant - Mr. Basantkumar Mithalalji Jain. The complainant, on being asked by this Court confirms that the matter has been settled between the parties and he further submits that he does not have any objection, if the impugned complaint is quashed qua the applicants herein. Learned Advocate for the applicants as well as learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 confirm that the dispute has been settled between the parties and affidavit dated 24.12.2020 is also filed by the respondent no.2, whereby he has confirmed the settlement between the parties and he also has consented for quashing of the criminal complaint impugned in the present application. Learned Advocate for the complainant further submits that an affidavit has also been filed by the original complainant which is at page no.11 of

R/CR.MA/205/2021 ORDER

the present application.

7. Learned APP Ms. Mehta for the respondent - State opposed the quashing of the complaint and submits that considering the allegations levelled against the applicants, no indulgence may be shown to the present applicants and the present application may be rejected.

8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and more particularly, considering the affidavit filed by the original complainant 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 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC ) and considering the facts of the dispute which is essentially private in nature, it becomes clear that no fruitful purpose would be served, if the complaint is not quashed since the investigation and the consequential trial would be an exercise in futility as the complainant himself clarifies and confirms that the he has settled the issue with the applicants herein.

9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Criminal Complaint being C.R. No.I 438 of 2019 registered with Salabatpura Police Station, District:- Surat City filed against the applicants herein is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Application is disposed of.

10. Direct service is permitted.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) VARSHA DESAI