Naresh L. Shah vs State of Gujarat and Another

M.D. Shah, J.—Rule. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. L.R. Pujari and learned advocate, Mr. A.V. Nair, 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 II - C.R. No. 3434 of 2010 before Saher Kotada Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable u/s 507 of Indian Penal Code in pursuance of complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2-complainant.

Heard learned advocate, Mr. K.P. Champaneri for the Petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. L.R. Pujari for the Respondent No. 1 and learned advocate, Mr. A.V. Nair for the Respondent No. 2.

It is jointly submitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that the matter is settled between the parties. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Nair for the complainant that the matter is settled between the parties and he seeks permission to place on record the affidavit of the complainant. Permission is granted to place the affidavit on the record. The complainant is present before this Court, who is identified by learned advocate Mr. Nayar. It is submitted by complainant that the matter is settled between them and the settlement is not under any duress and now he has no grievance against the Petitioner.

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 II.C.R. No. 3434 of 2010 registered before Saher Kotada Police Station, Ahmedabad and the proceedings therein are required to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.