1. Heard Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicants, Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP for respondent No.1 and Mr. Vipul Sundesha, learned advocate for respondent No.2.
2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing CR No.I142 of 2012 registered at “C” Division Police Station, Bharuch for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the IPC.
3. Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that as such only because of misunderstanding between the parties, the impugned FIR came to be lodged by respondent No.2. It is submitted that during the course of business transaction, certain misunderstanding occurred between the parties more particularly because of the nonpayment of price of goods sold. It is submitted that the applicants as well as respondent No.2 have amicably settled the issue which was of civil in nature as well as private dispute. It is further submitted that in fact respondent No.2 has also filed an affidavit in this proceedings and has clearly declared that the applicants as well as respondent No.2 have arrived at an amicable solution. It is further submitted that even in affidavit, respondent No.2 has clearly mentioned that the FIR was lodged only because of some misunderstanding and peacefully the parties have amicably settled the dispute without any coercion, fraud, force or undue influence. The learned advocate for the applicants relied upon the judgments in the case 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, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31 and Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and submitted that no useful purpose would be served if the prosecution is permitted to continue the proceedings and there are no chances of conviction and the trial would be futile and on the contrary, it would amount to abuse of process of law and Court. The learned advocate for the applicants relied upon the ratio laid down in the case of Giansingh (supra) and submitted that even if the offence alleged are noncompoundable, powers under Section 482 of the Code are not curtailed or in any way breach of the provisions of Section 320 of the Code and in view of the settlement arrived at, as aforesaid, this is a fit case in which this Court would exercise its inherent powers to prevent the abuse of process of law and ends of justice. It is, therefore, submitted that the application deserves to be allowed as prayed for.
4. Mr. Sundesha, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has almost reiterated what has been submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants. Mr. Sundesha submitted that respondent No.2 who is present in the Court has also expressed the same thing. Mr. Sundesha identifies respondent No.2 and on inquiry from respondent No.2, respondent No.2 has informed this Court that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. It is, therefore, submitted that the prayers prayed for in this application may kindly be granted.
5. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP, however, candidly opposes the application. She states that inspite of compromise having been arrived at by and between the parties, the fact remains that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR does disclose prima facie offence having been committed by the applicants and it being noncompoundable offence, this Court may not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the facts stated hereinabove and as the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the dispute seems to be private in nature and considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears that the criminal proceedings against the applicants would be unnecessarily harassment to the applicants and the same shall not be in the interest of parties and therefore, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the FIR bearing CR No.I142 of 2012 registered with “C” Division Police Station, Bharuch for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also terminated. Accordingly, this application is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
mrpandya (R.M.CHHAYA, J.)