1. Rule.
Learned A.P.P., Mr.H.L. Jani waives service of notice of Rule for respondent no.1-State of Gujarat and learned counsel Mr.D.K. Puj waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2-original complainant.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicant-original accused under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the FIR being C.R.No.I-181/2010 registered with Radhanpur Police Station, Dist- Patan, on the grounds stated in the application.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
4. Learned counsel, Mr.Tirmizi has stated that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, which is confirmed by learned counsel, Mr.Puj. and the affidavit of Respondent No.2-original complainant was placed on record stating that due to intervention of the respected members of the Society, the complainant has no grievance. Both counsel have therefore stated that FIR may be quashed.
5. Learned Counsel Mr.Tirmizi has referred to and relied upon the judgment in case of Md. Idris v.
State of Bihar and others, reported in 1980 CRI.L.J. 764 (Patna High Court), as also referred to the order passed by this Court (Coram: A.A. Kureshi, J.) in Criminal Misc. Application No.14710 of 2009 on 22.02.2010, as well as the order passed in Special Criminal Application No.751 of 2007 by this Court (Coram: M.D. Shah, J.) on 03.05.2007.
6. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances and considering the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is required to be considered whether the present application can be entertained. The Court is conscious about the fact that such powers have to be exercised with care and circumspection. The Hon'ble Court has made observation in catena of judicial pronouncements that it is not the lack of inherent jurisdiction with the Court but the manner in which it should be exercised with care and circumspection. Therefore, when in a given case, it appears that continuation of the proceedings would be the futile exercise, the discretion may be exercised but when it is in abuse of process of law, the discretion may not be exercised.
7. In the circumstances, considering the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court including the the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. Vs. Radhika & Anr., reported in AIR 2012 SC 499, wherein it has been observed that if the parties have arrived at settlement and the continuation of the proceedings would be futile exercise then the FIR may be quashed. The Hon'ble Apex Court made observation as under:
"The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. By itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law"
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the application deserves to be allowed.
8. In the circumstances, the present application stands allowed in terms of Para No.10(A). The FIR being C.R.No.I-181/2010 registered with Radhanpur Police Station is hereby quashed and and set aside.
9. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J.) mehul Top