Kaushik Vasant Hariya and Others vs State of Gujarat and Another

M.R. Shah, J.—Rule. Mr. K.P. Rawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Mr. P.R. Abichandani, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 2 - original complainant.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties and as it is reported that the parties have settled the dispute amicably, which was prima facie private in nature, the present application is taken up for final hearing today.

The present application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicants - original accused to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No. I-295 of 2011 registered with Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 506(2), 448, 294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Y.S. Lakhani, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Rajesh Kanani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. It is submitted that the dispute was with respect to the store, which was taken on lease by the Company vide lease agreement dated 11/03/2010. It is submitted that as the Company was in exclusive possession of the said store for operating it''s business and, therefore, there is No. question of applicants having illegally entering into the said store and committing the offence of trespass at any point of time, as alleged. It is submitted that even otherwise the dispute is amicably settled between the parties and Memorandum of Understanding dated 25/08/2011 is also entered into between the Company namely M/S. Gitanjali Jewellery Retail Pvt. Ltd. and original complainant, under which, the respective parties are required to withdraw the proceedings initiated against each other. Mr. Y.S. Lakhani, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has also stated that in view of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 25/08/2011, even applicant No. 2 is also required to withdraw the Criminal Complaint dated 12/05/2011 lodged with the Satellite Police Station against the original complainant and he shall withdraw the said Criminal Complaint unconditionally.

Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31 as well as in the case of Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors. reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and requested to quash and set aside the impugned FIR.

Mr. P.R. Abichandani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 - original complainant is not disputing the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the parties and he is also not disputing that the dispute is amicably settled between the parties. However, he has submitted that in view of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 25/08/2011, even applicant No. 2 is also required to withdraw the Criminal Complaint dated 12/05/2011 filed by the Company against him registered with Satellite Police Station. He has also stated at the bar that he has No. objection, if the impugned FIR is quashed and set aside in view of the settlement entered into between the parties and original complainant does not want to proceed further with the said FIR and prosecutor the applicants further.

Mr. K.P. Rawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1-State has requested to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the impugned FIR, it appears that allegations made against the applicants are for the offences punishable under Sections 506(2), 448, 294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. On bare reading of the FIR, it appears to the Court that the applicants have not committed any offences, as alleged. In the present case, there is a settlement between the parties and it is reported that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated 25/08/2011, by which, the respective parties to the said Memorandum of Understanding are required to withdraw the proceedings filed against each other. In view of the above Memorandum of Understanding dated 25/08/2011 entered into between the parties and as it is reported that the dispute is amicably settled between the parties and considering the fact that the dispute seems to be private in nature, it appears to the Court that now to continue the criminal proceedings against the applicants will be unnecessary harassment to the parties and will be abuse of process of law and Court. Even as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 25/08/2011, applicant No. 2 is required to withdraw the Criminal Complaint dated 12/05/2011 registered with Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad.

In view of the above and considering the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and Memorandum of Understanding dated 25/08/2011 entered into between the parties, the impugned FIR being C.R. No. I-295 of 2011 registered with Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 506(2), 448, 294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside so far as the applicants herein - original accused are concerned. Even applicant No. 2 shall also withdraw the Criminal Complaint dated 12/05/2011 filed by him against original complainant with Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad. Hence, the concerned Police Officer of Satellite Police Station is not required to do anything with respect to the said Criminal Complaint dated 12/05/2011. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.