NITINKUMAR RAMJIBHAI JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2013-7-176
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on July 12,2013

Nitinkumar Ramjibhai Joshi Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE applicant, who is accused No.5, has taken out present application seeking below mentioned relief/s:-
"7(A) Your Lordships be pleased to admit and allow this application by quashing the impugned FIR being C.R. No. I- 10 of 2010 registered with CID Crime, Rajkot as well as all criminal proceedings arising therefrom qua the present applicant; (B) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this application, Your Lordships be pleased to stay further investigation in respect of the impugned FIR being C.R. No. I-1 of 2010 registered with CID Crime, Rajkot qua the applicant, and further be pleased to restrain the respondents herein from taking any coercive action; (C) .........."

(2.)THE facts leading to filing of present application are that the respondent No.2 has lodged FIR against applicant herein and others on 1.3.2010 alleging, inter alia, that he was lured by the co-accused persons to invest about Rs.2-3 Crores in the Dubai based business of the applicant on the assurance that he would be returned double the invested amount within a year.
2.1 It is alleged that the respondent No.2 gave Rs.10 lacs to accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is alleged that the accused No.2 assured that within a year first informant will be returned double amount. 2.2 It is also alleged that the accused No.2 had asked the first informant to execute a promissory note saying that the first informant had given the amount towards hand loan to the accused persons. 2.3 It is alleged that the said promissory note was executed. It is also claimed that several other persons had also invested money trusting the words of the co-accused persons. 2.4 It is alleged that even after more than a year and half, no reply or refund was given to the complainant and other investors and therefore FIR came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC. 2.5 It is claimed that the applicant herein i.e. accused No.5 was not aware of any such design having been made over here and he continued his business abroad. It is also claimed that the applicant had absolutely no idea of the present FIR and investigating in pursuance thereof. 2.6 It is claimed that during the course of investigation, the co-accused came to be nabbed and charge-sheeted. 2.7 It is also claimed that all the co-accused, except the wife of the applicant herein, faced trial and got an acquittal from the learned trial Court. In such background it is claimed that the petitioner i.e. accused No.5 and respondent have, by way of amicable settlement resolved the dispute and they have executed consent terms. 2.8 In view of the aforesaid development the petitioner i.e. accused No.5 has filed present petition for above quoted relief/s.

Today when the petition is called out and taken up for hearing, Mr. Buch, learned advocate for the petitioner i.e. accused No.5 and Mr. Yagnik learned advocate for the respondent No.2 have jointly submitted that the accused No.5 and the respondent have, by way of amicable settlement, resolved the dispute and they have entered into settlement and have executed consent terms wherein the terms and condition of the settlement have been reduced into writing. Learned advocates for the accused No.5 and respondent have drawn attention of the Court to the document annexed at Annexure-C page 29 which is an affidavit of respondent No.2 wherein the respondent No.2 has declared that he does not want to prosecute the proceedings further. Learned advocates have also jointly submitted that the said consent terms have been signed by authorized signatory and constituted attorney of the petitioner and respondent respectively as well as learned advocates for the petitioner and respondent. Learned advocates have identified the signature of their respective clients.

(3.)MR . Buch learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 have jointly submitted that in view of the said settlement the FIR bing C.R. No. I-10 of 2010 registered with CID Crime, Rajkot as well as all criminal proceedings arising therefrom qua present applicant i.e. accused No.5 may be quashed.


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