1 Rule.
Service is waived. Upon joint request made by the learned advocates for the parties, both applications are taken up for final disposal.
2 Both applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short, 'the Code'] are filed by the applicants to quash M. Case No.2 of 2008 and M. Case No.3 of 2008, dated 14.2.2008 and 14.3.2008 respectively, registered before Nakhtrana Police Station, District: Bhuj-Kutch, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Basically, the nature of allegations levelled in both applications revolve around the dispute of land arisen between the parties out of transaction taken place upon execution of power of attorney, etc. and civil litigation in the form of filing Civil Suit No.7 of 2008 filed in the Court of the learned Senior Principal Civil Judge, Nakhtrana, came to be compromised as per settlement purshis Exh.52 filed accordingly and an order was passed by the Civil Court in terms of the settlement.
Now, the complainant has filed affidavit dated 17.4.2012 in each of the applications and has affirmed the compromise arrived at between the parties and, unequivocally, stated that he has no objection if proceedings in each of the applications impugned are quashed and set aside. In the above back-drop, it is jointly submitted that both applications may be allowed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code..
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and since the facts are not in dispute and now the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and even the civil litigation instituted in the form of Civil Suit has also resulted into an order passed on compromise/settlement purshis, and keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of B.S.
Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, K. Gyansagar vs. Ganesh Gupta & another, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 54, Jagdish Chanana and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 15 SCC 704, and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, and Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677, in my view, relegating the applicants to undergo the rigors of trial is not just and proper.
Hence, a case is made out to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code to secure ends of justice and, accordingly, the impugned complaint in each of the applications is quashed and set aside. Both applications are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule in each application is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top