Khatri Surendrakumar Kantilal vs State of Gujarat and Another

M.D. Shah, J.—Rule. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. L.R. Pujari and learned advocate, Mr. Anip Gandhi, 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 and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 7.12.2010 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2009 and order dated 29.7.2009 passed by the learned JMFC, Mehsana below Exh.3 in Criminal Case No. 5635 of 2006.

Heard learned advocate, Mr. Pratik Barot for the Petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. L.R. Pujari for the Respondent No. 1 and learned advocate, Mr. Gandhi for the Respondent No. 2.

It is jointly submitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that the matter is settled between the parties as per the settlement terms. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Barot for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has deposited entire cheque amount as well as Rs. 10,000/- towards cost also to the complainant. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi for the Respondent No. 2 - complainant submitted that the complainant has no objection if the permission be granted to compound the offences.

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 Criminal Revision Application is required to be allowed and the parties be permitted to compound the offence.

In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 7.12.2010 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2009 and the order dated 29.7.2009 passed by the learned JMFC, Mehsana below Exh.3 in Criminal Case No. 5635 of 2006 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.