AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Pathak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1-State of Gujarat. Mr. B.N. Limbachia, the learned advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2-original complainant and waives service of notice of rule.
By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners seek to invoke the inherent powers of this court, praying for quashing of the first information report being I C.R. No.177 of 2014 lodged before the Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad of the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that there has been an amicable settlement between the parties and the respondent No.2-original complainant is no longer desirous of prosecuting the first information report further. The respondent No.2- Dharmeshbhai Harshadbhai Hariyali is personally present and he confirms about the settlement arrived at with the accused persons. The respondent No.2- Dharmeshbhai Harshadbhai Hariyali is identified by his learned advocate Mr. B.N. Limbachia. Shri Dharmeshbhai Harshadbhai Hariyali has also filed an affidavit, inter alia, stating as under:
"I, Dharmeshbhai Harshadbhai Hariyali, Gender, Male, Aged, 52 years, Occupation: Chartered Accountant, Residing at: 40/41, Sahjanand Palace, Behind Sindhu Bhavan, Thalrej, Ahmedabad respondent No.2 herein do hereby solemnly affirmed and stage on oath as under:-
I have gone through the memo of application filed by petitioners and I have also perused relevant papers pertaining thereto. I am conversant with the facts of the case and hence I am filing this affidavit.
I say and submit that I have lodged an FIR being I- C.R. No.177 of 2014 on 24.11.2014 before Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural against the present petitioners for the offences punishable u/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 447 r/w section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
It is very respectfully submitted that the dispute between us is private in nature. It is submitted that now upon intervention of trusted persons of the society, the mater has been resolved between us and an amicable settlement has been arrived at. I further submitted that the petitioner No.1 and I have instituted civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.447 of 2014 and 608 of 2014 respectively before the court of Ld. Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural in respect to the land in question, wherein settlement purshis has been filed and pursuant thereto both suits came to be disposed of. Therefore also continuation of the criminal proceeding does not serve any purpose now.
In light of the above facts and circumstances, I have decided to withdraw the FIR in question which I have initiated against the petitioners. Therefore now I don''t object if the FIR and all prior and subsequent proceedings are quashed and set aside.
It is further submitted that since the dispute in question is resolved between me and petitioners it would be just and proper that the FIR being I.C.R. No.177 of 2014 on 24.11.2014 before Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural and all proceedings instituted pursuant thereto be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.
What is stated hereinabove is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and I believe it to be true and correct.
Solemnly affirmed on this 10th day of February, 2017 at Ahmedabad."
Taking into consideration the nature of the dispute and the fact that the parties have now amicably decided to live peacefully, no useful purpose would be served to allow the police to continue with the investigation of the said first
information report.
In the result, this application is allowed. The first information report being I C.R. No.177 of 2014 lodged before the Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad is hereby ordered to be quashed. All consequential proceedings arising from the same also stand terminated. Rule is made absolute. The Registry shall accept the Vakalatnama of Mr. B.N. Limbachia, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.
Direct service is permitted.