Nikunj B. Patel vs State of Gujarat and Others

R.M. Chhaya, J.—Heard Mr. M.P. Prajapati, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, and Mr. Tolia, learned advocate for respondent No. 2-first informant/original complainant. By way of the present application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the applicant has prayed for quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No. I-80 of 2012 registered with Adajan Police Station, Dist. Surat for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).

Mr. M.P. Prajapati, learned advocate for the applicant, has taken this Court to the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At the outset it is submitted that the parties have as such amicably resolved the dispute. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 has also filed affidavit for compromise dated 20.12.2013 before this Court. It is therefore submitted that any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. shall amount to harassment to the parties and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the trial would be futile and the same would also amount to abuse of process of law and court and, therefore, it is submitted that in order secure the ends of justice, this Court may quash the impugned F.I.R. as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R.

Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, candidly states that as the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

Mr. Tolia, learned advocate for respondent No. 2-first informant/original complainant, reiterates the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court, who is identified by the learned advocate for respondent No. 2, and a photocopy of driving licence of respondent No. 2 is tendered, which is taken on record. It is further submitted that in fact respondent No. 2 has also filed an affidavit dated 20.12.2013, which is taken on record, wherein it is clearly averred that there was financial dispute between the present applicant and respondent No. 2 and due to intervention of people from the society and also looking to the business relation between the parties they have agreed to settle the matter and ultimately they have amicably resolved the dispute and now he has no objection if the impugned F.I.R. is quashed qua the present applicant.

Upon inquiry, respondent No. 2-Vimal Ashokbhai Upadhyay, who is present in the court, admits the contents of the aforesaid affidavit dated 20.12.2013 and states that such compromise has taken place between the parties and he has no objection if the impugned F.I.R. as well as all proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. are quashed.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as considering the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, as well as in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others, it appears that further continuation of the criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned F.I.R. against the applicant-original accused would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant and the trial would be futile and would also amount to abuse of process of law and court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned F.I.R. as well as all other proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. are required to be quashed in exercise of power u/s 482 of the Code.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No. I-80 of 2012 registered with Adajan Police Station, Dist. Surat as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.