Souvik Kar vs State of Gujarat and Others

M.D. Shah, J.—Rule. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. L.R. Pujari waives service of notice of rule on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. K.D. Vasavada waives service of notice of rule on behalf of Respondent No. 2.

The present application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR registered as C.R. No. I - 372 of 2010 before Gorva Police Station, District Vadodara for the offences punishable under Sections420, 469, 506, 114 and 500 of IPC in pursuance of complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2-complainant.

Heard learned advocate, Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the Petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. L.R. Pujari for the Respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. K.D. Vasavada for the Respondent No. 2.

It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Vasavada for the Respondent No. 2 - original complainant that the complainant is aged 67 years and she met with an accident and she is bed-ridden and therefore she could not remain present before this Court. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Vasavada that the signature in the affidavit is of Respondent No. 2 - original complainant. It is stated in the affidavit dated 16.4.2011 filed by original complainant in para 3 which reads as under:

I further say that I shall have no claim disputes of any nature whatsoever against Shri Souvik Kar and all my differences of whether of civil nature or that may be under the criminal laws shall stand abandoned, waived, relinquished, given up, compromised and settled and no further proceedings in civil or criminal forum shall be initiated under any law with any court/police station/authority by me against him in future with respect to or touching the facts stated in the present complaint.

In view of the same, learned Counsel for the parties submitted that the matter is settled between the parties and now the complainant has no grievance against the Petitioner. It is also submitted by learned advocate Mr. Vasavada that he has personally verified from the complainant that the matter is settled between the parties.

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 C.R. No. I - 372 of 2010 registered before Gorva Police Station, District Vadodara and the proceedings therein are required to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.