Darshnaben Ajaybhai Soni and Another vs State of Gujarat and Another

R.M. Chhaya, J.—Heard Mr. B.N. Limbachia, learned advocate for the applicants, Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1, and Mr. Dhiraj M. Patel, 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 applicants have prayed for quashing of the private criminal complaint being Criminal Case No. 92 of 2009 pending before Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 19, Ahmedabad for the offences under Sections 420, 323, 504, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) as well as order dated 24.07.2009 passed therein for the offences under Sections 323, 294B, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC.

Mr. B.N. Limbachia, learned advocate for the applicants, 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 dated 21.10.2013 before this Court wherein it is stated the dispute in question is resolved between the parties. It is therefore submitted that any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned private criminal complaint 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 to secure the ends of justice, this Court may quash the impugned private criminal complaint as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned private criminal complaint.

Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1, candidly states that as the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

Mr. Dhiraj M. Patel, learned advocate for respondent No. 2-first informant/original complainant, reiterates the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court, who is identified by the learned advocate for respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that in fact respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit dated 21.10.2013 wherein it is clearly averred that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and she has no objection if the criminal case and all prior and subsequent proceedings are quashed qua the present applicants.

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 private criminal complaint against the applicants-original accused would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants 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 private criminal complaint as well as all other proceedings arising out of the private criminal complaint 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 private criminal complaint being Criminal Case No. 92 of 2009 pending before Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 19, Ahmedabad, order dated 24.07.2009 passed therein as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid private criminal complaint are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is I made absolute to the aforesaid extent.