The facts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No.2 herein had lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein alleging the offences punishable under Sections 365, 342, 323, 403, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, which came to be registered as a First Information Report vide Bagasara Police Station I ý C.R. No.64/2008.
It appears that, subsequently, the parties have settled the disputes between them which has been reduced to writing by a compromise deed dated 17th June, 2008, whereby the respondent No.2 has agreed that the complaint which he had lodged against the present petitioner was filed in the heat of the moment and that, he no longer desires to pursue the matter any further. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioners have moved the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) praying to quash the First Information Report in question.
Ms.Shilpa Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that considering the nature of the allegations made in the First Information Report as well as the compromise arrived at between the parties, no evidence as alleged can be stated to have been made out against any of the petitioners. In the circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
Ms.Bharti Rana, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has reiterated the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner. She has stated that the complaint was filed in the heat of the moment, and that the respondent No.2 complainant had no longer any grievance against the present petitioners. It is submitted that in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the complaint in question be quashed.
This Court in the case of Rajeshbhai Natwarlal Agrawal and Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 GLH 504 has, after considering various decisions on the issue, held that it would not be just and proper nor it would be in the interest of justice to compel the parties to face trial despite there being settlement. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Inderjitsinh v. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Anr. III (2006) CCR 24 has held that continuation of proceedings will be an exercise in futility where the parties have amicably settled the dispute and have compromised the matter.
Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the principles enunciated in the decisions cited hereinabove, it is apparent that the said decisions would be applicable on all fours to the present case. In the instant case, the petitioners and the respondent No.2 are friends and are closely related to each other. Hence, due to intervention on the part of the other family members, they have amicably settled the disputes between them. In the circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would come in the way of the petitioners and the respondent No.2 in maintaining cordial relations. Besides, in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, chances of an ultimate conviction are also bleak. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would best be served if the first information report in question is quashed. This is, therefore, a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of the process of Court.
For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is, accordingly allowed. The First Information Report registered vide Bagasara Police Station I ý C.R. No.64/2008, is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar*