Gujarat High Court
Lalo Bachubhai Sohla vs State Of Gujarat on 16 November, 2021
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
R/CR.MA/19837/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19837 of 2021
==========================================================
LALO BACHUBHAI SOHLA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PARTHIV A BHATT(5331) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.HARDIK SONI, APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 16/11/2021
ORAL ORDER
[1] Mr.Tejas Shukla, learned advocate states that he
has instructions to appear for and on behalf of respondent
No.2. He is permitted to file his appearance.
[2] Considering the issues involved in the present
application and with consent of the learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the
fact that the dispute amongst the applicants and respondent
No.2 has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up
for final disposal forthwith.
[3] Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well
as learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive
service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
[4] By way of this application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Code"), the applicants have prayed for quashing and
setting aside F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.I-166 of 2018 registered
with Gandhigram-2 (Uni.) Police Station, Rajkot for the
R/CR.MA/19837/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2021
offence punishable under Sections 307, 325, 323, 341, 504,
114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the G.P.Act and to
quash all other consequential proceedings arising out of the
aforesaid FIR qua the applicants.
[5] Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
[6] Both the learned advocates would submit that
during the pendency of present application, the matter is
amicably settled amongst the parties and therefore, any
further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the
impugned FIR would create hardship to the parties and further
continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of
process of law.
[7] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State has opposed the present application and submitted
that considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint
in question may not be quashed and the present application
may be rejected. In support of her submissions, she relied
upon the judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Laxminarayan reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688.
[8] Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has placed
on record the settlement Affidavit duly sworn by the original
complainant as well as injured, which is at Annexure-B to the
petition. The respondent No.2 as well as injured have filed
affidavit stating inter-alia the fact that the matter is amicably
settled with the applicants. The respondent No.2 as well as
injured are present in person before the Court and are
identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2 and also
admits the contents of the Affidavits. On inquiry made by the
Court, the original complainant has declared before this Court
that the dispute is resolved and therefore, now the grievance
R/CR.MA/19837/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2021
stands redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present
application may be allowed.
[9] Having heard the learned advocates for the parties
and considering the facts of settlement as well as prima facie,
the case does not fall under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code and law laid down by the Apex Court [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 considered view
that further continuation of the criminal proceedings in relation
to the impugned FIR would nothing but unnecessary
harassment to the parties and trial thereon would be futile
and further continuation of the proceedings would amount to
abuse of process of law. Thus, to secure the ends of justice,
the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in
exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code.
[10] Resultantly, this application is allowed and the
impugned FIR bearing C.R.No.I-166 of 2018 registered with
Gandhigram-2 (Uni.) Police Station, Rajkot filed against
present applicants is hereby quashed and set aside and all
other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also
quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Accordingly, Rule is
made absolute. Direct service permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
Manoj
