Gujarat High Court
Satish Tirupati Agrawal vs State Of Gujarat on 27 June, 2024
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11731/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 11731 of 2024
=====================================================
SATISH TIRUPATI AGRAWAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR MATAFER R PANDE(3952) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR UTKARSH SHARMA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 27/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties. Learned advocate Ms. Reshma
G. Rauma states that she has an instructions to
appear for the respondent No.2 - complainant. She is
permitted to file her appearance forthwith.
2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
as well as learned advocate appearing for the
Complainant waive service of Rule on behalf of the
respective respondents.
3. Considering the issue involved in the
present application and with consent of the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11731/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
advocates appearing for the respective parties as
well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst
the applicant and respondent No.2 has been resolved
amicably, this application is taken up for final
disposal forthwith.
4. By way of this application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the
applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside
the Private Criminal Case No.20888 of 2021, the
judgment and order passed by the learned 10th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, dated
11.1.2024 under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 as well as all other
consequential proceedings arising out of the
aforesaid complaint qua the present applicant.
5. Learned advocate for the applicant has
taken this Court through the factual matrix arising
out of the present application. At the outset, it is
submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the
issue and therefore, any further continuance of the
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as
any further proceedings arising therefrom would
create hardship to the applicant. It is submitted
that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these
proceedings and has declared that the dispute between
the applicant and respondent No.2 is resolved due to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11731/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
intervention of trusted persons of the society. It is
further submitted that in view of the fact that the
dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and
any further continuance of the proceedings would
amount to abuse of process of law. It is therefore
submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent
powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code and
allow the application as prayed for.
6. 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.
7. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has
reiterated the contentions raised by the learned
advocate for the applicant. The learned advocate for
respondent No.2 also relied upon the affidavit filed
by respondent No.2 - Sagarkumar Arvindkumar
Brahmbhatt dated 27.6.2024. Respondent No.2 is
present in person before the Court and is identified
by learned advocate for respondent No.2. On inquiry
made by the Court, respondent No.2 has declared
before this Court that the dispute between the
applicant and respondent No.2 is resolved due to
intervention of trusted persons of the society and
therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11731/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
therefore submitted that the present application may
be allowed.
8. Having heard the learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties, considering the
facts and circumstances arising out of the present
application as well as taking into consideration the
decisions rendered by the Hon'ble 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), it appears that further
continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to
the impugned FIR against the applicant would be
unnecessary harassment to the applicant. I have also
considered the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat,
Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 dated 4.10.2017 and
the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the said decision, particularly paragraph 15.
Considering the nature of disputes between the
parties which are all private in nature, I am of the
opinion that the matter requires consideration. It
appears that the trial would be futile and further
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11731/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the
impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law
and hence, 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.
9. Resultantly, this application is allowed
and Private Criminal Case No.20888 of 2021, the
judgment and order passed by the learned 10th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, dated
11.1.2024 under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 is hereby quashed and set aside
qua the present applicant. Consequently, all other
proceedings arising out of the aforesaid complaint
are also quashed and set aside qua the present
applicant. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute.
Direct service is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
