BABULAL KANTILAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2013-2-295
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on February 26,2013

Babulal Kantilal Patel Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE applicants have filed Criminal Misc. Application No.3211 of 2013 for fixing this matter for final hearing.
(2.)AS Mr.K.V.Shelat, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr.Viral K. Salot, learned advocate for respondent No.3first informant have indicated that the applicants and the first informant are closed relatives and have amicably resolved the dispute between them, the present matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal with consent of the parties.
Heard Mr.K.V.Shelat, learned advocate for the applicants, Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Mr.Viral K. Salot, learned advocate for respondent No.3first informant.

(3.)IT may be noted that this Court (Coram: K.M.Thaker, J) vide order dated 19.02.2013 while admitting the matter passed the following order:
"Heard Mr. Shelat, learned advocate for the petitioners, and Ms.Raval, learned APP, for the respondent ­ State. 2. In present petition, the petitioners have prayed that: "15[B]That the entire proceedings and complaint registered as II.CR.No.3015/2013 of Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad be quashed and set aside and the parties be permitted to compound and Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate's Court No.9, Ahmedabad be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1 Lakh by Account Payee Cheque in the name of applicant no.1 and be further directed to return the passport of the applicant no.1 herein." 2.1 The offence alleged in the impugned FIR is under Sections 294, 506 and 114 of IPC. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the alleged offence in the impugned FIR is a dispute of private and personal nature. It is further submitted that the petitioners and the complainant, i.e. private respondent have arrived at a settlement. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on AnnexureD, Page21, which is an affidavit purportedly made by the private respondent, i.e. complainant. It is claimed that the respondent ­ complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. 4. In view of the said submission by learned advocate for the petitioners, below mentioned order is passed: 4.1 Rule. Ms. Raval, learned APP, waives service of rule for the respondent ­ State. 4.2 It would be open to the parties to request the concerned Court, taking up final hearing as per present roster, for early hearing and final decision of this petition."

(1) As noted hereinabove, the concerned parties are closed relatives and have amicably settled the dispute, the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. do not require any elaboration. (2) Suffice it to state that the first informant has filed impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No.II3015 of 2013 registered at Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences under Sections 294B, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and the allegations against the applicants are made in nature of threatening as well as in relation to some transaction/ investment made by the first informant. (3) Mr.K.V.Shelat, learned advocate for the applicants, has taken this Court to the factual matrix arising out of the present application. It is submitted that the first informant is the brotherinlaw of applicant No.1 and maternal uncle of applicant No.2 and the impugned F.I.R. came to be lodged only because of some misunderstanding on the part of the first informant. It is submitted that due to intervention of the members of the family the concerned parties have amicably resolved the dispute and differences and now they have re established cordial relations. (6.1)Attention was invited of this Court to the affidavit dated 12.02.2013 filed by respondent No.3 in the present matter wherein it has been averred by the first informant that because of intervention of wellwishers and mediators, the dispute is resolved and no grievances survive. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that (6.2) pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. the applicants applied for bail, which came to be granted vide order dated 18.01.2013 by Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad, inter alia, with conditions ­ not to leave the limits of Gujarat State without prior permission of the court, and if having passport, deposit the same within a period of three days. It is further submitted that as applicant No.2 wanted to travel to USA, as he stays in USA, the applicants filed Criminal Misc. Application No.255 of 2013 before City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad for deletion / modification of the aforesaid conditions while granting bail to the present applicants vide order dated 18.01.2013, which came to be allowed vide order dated 29.01.2013 by Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Court No.15, Ahmedabad whereby the aforesaid conditions were modified and the applicants were permitted to leave the country and directed the concerned authority/lower court to hand over the passports mainly on condition to deposit Rs.1,00,000/ as security with the concerned authority/court. Over and above the other conditions which are enumerated in Paragraph No.2 of the said order, which is also placed on record of the present application (at AnnexureC). (6.3)Learned advocate for the applicants submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the concerned parties, this Court may quash the impugned F.I.R. and also pass an order to return Rs.1,00,000/ deposited by the applicants. It is submitted that as far as this aspect is concerned, the first informant has no objection if any such direction is issued, which is also indicative from the affidavit tendered by the first informant in the present application. It is therefore submitted that this is a fit case where this Court may kindly exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Learned advocate for the applicants has further (6.4) submitted that any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. shall amount to harassment to the applicants and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties trial would be futile and the same would also amount to abuse of process of law and court and, therefore, it is submitted that in order secure the ends of justice, this Court may quash the impugned F.I.R. as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.