- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
SUNIL DASHRATH KAHAR v. STATE OF GUJARAT
R/CR.MA/5257/2023 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5257 of 2023
==========================================================
SUNIL DASHRATH KAHAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
========================================================== Appearance:
MR SUDHANSHU A JHA(8345) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MM MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 28/03/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Mr. M.S. Joshi states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and thereby, seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. Rule. Learned advocates waive service of note of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
Page 1 of 3
4. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR No.11196017230027 registered with Panigate Police Station, Vadodara City for the offences under Sections 386 of IPC and sections 40 & 42 of the Gujarat Money Lenders' Act and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
5. Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit, which is on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant has been resolved amicably and that he has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.
6. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of - (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31,
Page 2 of 3
(iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the applicant. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..
7. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned complaint being FIR No.11196017230027 registered with Panigate Police Station, Vadodara City as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant herein. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. If the applicant is in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the applicant forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
PRAVIN KARUNAN
Page 3 of 3
Alert