Vikasbhai Mansukhbhai Panda vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 761 Guj

       R/CR.MA/118/2021                                ORDER




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 118 of 2021

================================================================
                   VIKASBHAI MANSUKHBHAI PANDA
                               Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SURAJ B MATIEDA(10499) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS.MOXA THAKKAR, 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 Suraj B. Matieda for the applicant and learned APP Ms.M.K.Thakkar for the respondent - State.

2. Learned Advocate Mr.Suraj B. Matieda for the applicant submits that the learned Advocate Mr. M.A.Chauhan, who is appearing for the respondent No.2 - original complainant may be permitted to join the meeting. Permission is granted. Learned Advocate Shri M.A. Chauhan is permitted to file his vakalatnama on behalf of the original complainant.

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

R/CR.MA/118/2021 ORDER

4. By way of this application, the applicant is praying for quashing of the criminal complaint being C.R. No.I 31 of 2018 registered with Limdi Police Station, District:- Dahod for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 114, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3,4 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

5. Learned Advocate Shri Matieda submits that the dispute has been settled between the parties, therefore, 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 Mr.M.A.Chauhan for the respondent no.2 - original complainant submits that the respondent no.2 is also present in his office and the complainant Mr.Ratubhai Gajsingbhai Dangi may be permitted to join the meeting. Permission is granted. Complainant - Mr. Ratubhai Gajsingbhai Dangi is identified by learned Advocate Shri Chauhan. 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. Learned Advocate for the applicant as well as learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 confirm that the dispute has been settled between the parties and affidavit dated 10.12.2020 is also filed by the respondent no.2, whereby he has confirmed the settlement between the parties and he also has consent for quashing of the criminal complaint impugned in the present application. Learned Advocate Shri Chauhan further submits that an affidavit has also been filed by the original complainant which is at page no.14 of the present application.

R/CR.MA/118/2021 ORDER

7. Learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the respondent - State opposed the quashing of the complaint and submits that considering the allegations levelled against the applicant, no indulgence may be shown to the present applicant 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 applicant herein.

9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Criminal Complaint being C.R. No.I 31 of 2018 registered with Limdi Police Station, District:- Dahod filed against the applicants 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