Jorubhai Raghubhai Algotar vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 763 Guj

               R/CR.MA/94/2021                            ORDER




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 94 of 2021
============================================
               JORUBHAI RAGHUBHAI ALGOTAR
                              Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT
============================================
Appearance:
MR SANJAY PRAJAPATI(3227) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MD 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 Sanjay Prajapati for the applicants, who at the outset submits that the matter is settled between the parties and learned Advocate Ms. Arti Rajput may be permitted to join the meeting along with the complainant - Mangaji Babarji Thakor.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. M.D. Mehta waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Ms. Arti Rajput waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.2 - original complainant.

Learned Advocate Ms. Arti Rajput is permitted to file her Vakalatnama on behalf of the original complainant.

3. By way of present application, the applicants pray for quashing of the complaint being C.R. No.11191024201753 of 2020 registered with Ramol Police Station, Ahmedabad, dated 06.12.2020 for the offences under Sections 384, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

R/CR.MA/94/2021 ORDER

4. Learned Advocate Shri Prajapati submits that after filing of the complaint, which was on account of misunderstanding, the dispute is settled between the applicants and the respondent No.2. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served, if the complaint is not quashed. He submits that the complaint may be quashed against the present applicants.

5. Learned APP Ms. M.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.

6. Learned Advocate Ms. Arti Rajput submits that an affidavit confirming about the settlement filed by the complainant and she has identified the complainant and also submits that the matter is settled between the applicants and the complainant. She submits that the complainant would not have any objection, if the complaint is quashed.

7. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and more particularly, considering the affidavit filed by the original complainant on 18.12.2020 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 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.

7. In view of the discussions and observations above, the criminal complaint being being C.R. No.11191024201753 of 2020 registered with

R/CR.MA/94/2021 ORDER

Ramol Police Station, Ahmedabad, dated 06.12.2020 for the offences under Sections 384, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code qua the present applicants.

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