Hiteshbhai Harakhchand Shah and Another vs State of Gujarat and Others

M.D. Shah, J.—Rule. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ms. M.L. Shah learned advocate waive service of rule on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

The present application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR registered as I.C.R. No. 10 of 2007 before DCB Police Station, Vadodara, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC in pursuance of complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2-complainant.

Heard learned advocate, Ms Sangeeta N. Pahwa for the Petitioners, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ms. M. L. Shah for the Respondent No. 1 and 2.

The ori. complainant - Bank of Baroda has filed its affidavit-in-reply, wherein it is specifically stated that the firm - Apurva Aluminium Corporation has already paid its entire due amount. It is specifically mentioned in para-7 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No. 3 that as on date firm - Apurva Aluminium Corporation, its partners and guarantors have no amount due and payable towards the Respondent Bank. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-reply that this Court may pass appropriate order as deem fit and proper in best interest of justice.

The Respondent No. 3 - Chief Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, lodged complaint against present Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC. From the plain reading of the complaint, there is no allegation of creating forged documents or forged signature in the documents. As the present Petitioners could not pay amount towards loan this complaint is filed.

It is submitted by the learned advocate for the Petitioners that no amount is due and payable towards the Respondent bank - Bank of Baroda and now Respondent No. 3 - ori. complainant has no grievance against the present Petitioners and requests to quash the complaint.

In view of above, to continue criminal proceedings would amount to harassment to the Petitioners as they have already paid the amount to Respondent No. 3 Bank. The Respondent No. 3 - Bank of Baroda has no grievance against the present Petitioners.

The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, has observed as under in paras 5 and 7 of the judgment:

It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out.

We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs. 250/- which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case, direct that FIR No. 155 dated 17th November 2001 P.S. Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed.

Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that this Cri. Misc. Application is required to be allowed and the parties be permitted to compound the offence.

In the result, this Cri. Misc. Application is allowed. The complaint being I.C.R. No. 10 of 2007 registered before DCB Police Station, Vadodara, and the proceedings therein are required to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.