1 Rule.
Service is waived. Upon joint request made by the learned advocates for the parties, this matter is taken up for final disposal.
2 This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short, 'the Code'] is filed by the applicant to quash the FIR being C.R. No.I-3 of 2011 registered with Gondal City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 It is jointly submitted that the dispute pertaining to the plot/land n question is now amicably settled and affidavit dated 1.5.2012 is filed by the complainant which reads as under:
"I say and submit that due to intervention of the respected members of the society and family, mutual understanding and agreement is arrived at between me and original accused person in the above said FIR and now I do not have any grievances with him.
I further state that the original owner of the plot i.e. Jayshreben on whose behalf as power of attorney holder I filed the impugned complaint , has now received full consideration for the sale of the disputed plot and she has executed a sale deed also. I further state that since the entire dispute is settled with other accused, I have already made an affidavit to that effect also. Now the entire dispute is resolved between the partis. Therefore, now there is no grievances against the present petitioner and as such now I intend that I have no objection if the FIR is quashed filed against the present petitioner."
In the above back-drop, it is submitted that that the complaint and the subject matter of dispute no more survive; the applicant is a practising advocate since last 15 years at Rajkot having no criminal antecedents and while performing his duties, due to inadvertence, the mistake has occurred; that, now the amount of Rs.32,50,000/- is paid by the co-accused to the complainant and the matter is now settled.
4 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of 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 since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, in my view, relegating the applicant 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 is quashed and set aside. The application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top