Ashok Chunilal Joshi vs State of Gujarat and Another

A.G. Uraizee, J.—Heard learned advocate Mr. Kishor Prajapati for learned advocate Mr. M.H. Rathod on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Mr. Hitendra Rajput for learned advocate Mr. N.D. Buch on behalf of respondent No. 2 and learned APP Mr. Neeraj Soni appearing for respondent No. 1 State. The present application is filed to quash FIR being I-CR No. 12/2009 lodged with Deesa Rural Police Station on 17/1/2009 by respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 384 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The brief facts of the present case is that the applicant is a practicing lawyer at Deesa. One Mr. Santilal and his relatives were his regular client. On 13/1/2009, said Mr. Shantilal contacted the applicant for legal assistance to protect the possession of land being survey No. 254 of Moje Bhoyan, ("the subject land", for short) as D.S.P., Banaskantha and Police Inspector, Deesa Rural Police Station were started to divest him from lawful possession. Therefore, regular Civil Suit No. 7/2009 came to be instituted for permanent injunction in the court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Deesa. The application Exh. 6 was taken out in the said suit for appointment of Court Commissioner, which was granted by the Court. After serving of the notice of the suit, the vendor of the land was trying to take away forcefully possession of the subject land. Therefore, the complaint was lodged with the police station but no action was taken by the police authority, on the contrary, harassment by the police continued. Ultimately, respondent No. 2 has lodged complaint - Annexure "F" against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 384 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. The applicant obtained anticipatory bail and subsequently he also got regular bail. At the same time, the applicant approached this Court u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the complaint by preferring this application.

Learned advocates appearing for the parties have made joint statement before this Court that the dispute is settled between the parties and respondent No. 2 does not propose to press the FIR, Annexure 2 F.

Learned advocate appearing for the contesting parties i.e. the applicant and respondent No. 2 are not at conflict that the dispute is settled. It appears from the documents made available on the record of the application that the dispute between the applicant and respondent No. 2 essentially civil in nature and the society at large is not affected with the dispute between them. Since the parties have amicably settled their private dispute, no fruitful purpose would be served if the criminal prosecution is allowed to continue. Even if the dispute goes for trial to the Court, the chance of conviction is remote and very bleak. Under the circumstances, this is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested in this Court u/s 482 of the Code in quashing the FIR annexure F. My view is fortified by latests judgement of the Apex Court in case of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, and (ii) Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another,

The offshoot of the above discussion is that the present application deserves to be accepted and accordingly, it is allowed. The FIR being I-CR No. 12/2009 dated 17/1/2009 lodged with Deesa Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 384 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicant, is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.