Gujarat High Court
Himmatbhai Amarshibhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 31 January, 2022
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
R/CR.MA/13791/2012 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13791 of 2012
==========================================================
HIMMATBHAI AMARSHIBHAI ISMAILIYA & 3 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR P B KHANDHERIA(5228) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. MAITHILI MEHTA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 31/01/2022
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli on behalf
of the applicants, learned APP Ms. Mathili Mehta for the
respondent no.1 and learned Advocate Mr. P. B Khandheria
for the respondent no.2-original complainant.
2. Learned Advocate Mr. Dagli as well as learned Advocate
Mr. Khandheria on behalf of the parties would submit that
the issue between the parties has already been settled and
whereas learned Advocate Mr. Khandheria would submit that
an affidavit whereby the complainant has confirmed the fact
of settlement is already filed. Learned Advocates would
therefore, submit that the impugned FIR being I CR No. 57
of 2012 registered with the Gondal Police station, Dist Rajkot
may be quashed by this Court.
3. Learned APP Ms. Mehta would submit that the in view
of the settlement between the parties, appropriate orders
R/CR.MA/13791/2012 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2022
may be filed by this Court..
4. At this stage learned Advocate Mr. Khandheria would
submit that the complainant is present at his office and this
Court may permit the complainant to join the meeting.
Permission is granted. Upon verification by this Court, the
complainant who is identified by learned Advocate Mr.
Khandheria confirms the fact of settlement would submit
that he would not have any objection if the impugned
complaint is quashed.
5. Having regard to the same, more particularly since it
appears to this Court that the dispute between the parties
was private in nature, this Court is of the considered opinion
that no fruitful purpose would be served in case the
impugned complaint and any proceedings arising therefrom
is permitted to continue.
6. This Court is coming to the conclusion as above relying
upon 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 190 and Narinder Singh @ Ors. Vs. State of
Punajab & Anr reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC).
9. In view of the discussions and observations made herein
above, FIR bearing No. I C.R No. 57 of 2012 registered
before Gondal City police station, for the offences punishable
under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, and
R/CR.MA/13791/2012 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2022
further proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
10. Rule is made absolute. Registry is directed to
communicate this order to the concerned Police Station
through e-mail immediately.
11. Direct Service is permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
MARY VADAKKAN
