AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.D. Shah, J.—Rule. Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Mr. Pratiky Jasani, learned advocate waive service of rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 - State and 2 respectively.
The present application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of complaint registered as C.R. No. I-169 of 2010 with Kodinar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 114 of Indian Penal Code and u/s 135 of Bombay Police Act in pursuance of complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2- original complainant.
Heard learned advocate, Mr. Premal S. Rachh for the Petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. L.R. Pujari for the Respondent No. 1 and learned advocate, Mr. Pratiky Jasani, for the Respondent No. 2.
On behalf of the Respondent No. 2 - original complaint Mr. Pratiky Jasani has filed Vakalatnama and he is identified by the learned advocate. It is submitted by learned advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Rachh that matter is settled between the parties. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 - original complainant are present in the Court. Mr. Pratiky Jasani, learned advocate appearing for Respondent No. 2 - ori. complainant submitted that the Respondent No. 2 has no grievance against the present Petitioner and requests to quash the complaint.
It is submitted by original complainant - Respondent No. 2 that he received only simple injury. An affidavit to this effect is also placed on record, which is ordered to be taken on record. The complainant has submitted that the matter is settled between the parties and a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and that the settlement is not under any duress. It is further submitted that now he has no grievance against the Petitioner.
The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582 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 C.R. No. I-169 of 2010 registered with Kodinar Police Station, and the proceedings therein are required to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.