Dharmendrabhai Kantibhai Patel & 1 Other(S) vs State Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S)

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavati with learned Advocate Mr. Bomi H. Sethna for the applicants, learned APP Ms. M. D. Mehta for the respondent No.1-State and learned Advocate Mr. Sanat B. Pandya for the respondent No.2-original complainant.

By way of the present application the applicants pray for quashing of the FIR being C.R.No.I- 29 of 2018 registered with Nadiad Town Police Station, District Kheda for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B), 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

This petition has been taken up at the request of learned Advocate Mr. Sanat Pandya, who would submit that respondent No.2- Mrs. Deepakben Thakurbhai Lallubhai Patel as well as her power of attorney holder Mr. Bhavesh Patel are present in the Court and he has identified them. According to learned Advocate Mr. Pandya vide orders dated 02.04.2018 and 18.04.2018 while this Court had directed depositing an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- i.e. the amount allegedly misappropriated by the applicants and directed to be paid by the applicants to the complainant herein and whereas learned Advocate would submit that since Registry is not giving the said amount to the complainant, therefore he had requested for priority.

Upon the matter being taken up, learned Senior Advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavati would draw the attention of this Court to order dated 02.04.2018, whereby this Court had inter alia recorded the statement of the learned Advocate Mr. Bomi Sethna that his client is ready and willing to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/-. Learned Senior Advocate would emphasize that while this Court had noted the fact of the applicants depositing the said amount, this Court had not in that order made any provision for the amount to be given to the original complainant. Learned Senior Advocate would thereafter draw the attention of this Court to order dated 18.04.2018, whereby this Court had inter alia noted that if the complainant wants to withdraw the money, then presence of the complainant before the Registry is must. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the order of the Court was in context of a request made by the respondent No.2 for withdrawal of the amount in question and whereas learned Senior Advocate would submit that such an observation of this Court may not be treated as this Court having directed the amount to be paid in favour of the respondent No.2.

In any case, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavati, upon instructions, would submit that his client is ready and willing for the amount i.e. Rs. 10,00,000/- with whatever interest has accrued thereupon to be paid to the original complainant, if the original would be ready and willing, as a good gesture, consent for quashing of the impugned FIR.

Learned Advocate Mr. Sanat Pandya for the respondent No.2, upon instructions of the respondent No.2 who is present personally in the Court and with whom this Court has interacted would submit that the applicants-accused being near relatives of the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2, is willing to consent for quashing of the impugned FIR, if the Registry were to be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest accrued thereupon in favour of the respondent No.2.

Learned APP Ms. M.D. Mehta for the respondent-State would submit that while the allegations levelled in the FIR are serious, considering the personal nature of the dispute this Court may pass appropriate orders.

Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocates for the parties, more particularly considering the statement of the respondent No.2 who is present in the Court, that she consents for quashing of the impugned FIR upon the amount being paid to her in total, in the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served, if the impugned complaint is permitted to proceed further since the investigation and the consequential trial would be an exercise in futility.

This Court relies upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) to come to the above conclusion.

Having regard to the above discussion and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the following directions are passed :

(1) The Registry shall pay to the respondent No.2 - Deepakben Thakurbhai Lallubhai Patel the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited as noted vide order of this Court dated 02.04.2018 along with whatever interest has accrued thereupon till date. The said amount shall be paid to the respondent No.2 by account payee cheque and whereas the Registry shall issue the cheque after due verification. The Registry to ensure that the cheque to be given to the respondent No.2 on 08.03.2022 upon the respondent No.2 remaining personally present.

(2) The impugned FIR being C.R.No.I- 29 of 2018 registered with Nadiad Town Police Station, District Kheda as well as all other consequential proceedings arising thereform are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants herein.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.