By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicant seeks quashing of the complaint lodged before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godhra being M. Case No.58 of 2003.
The respondent No.2 - original complainant lodged the above referred complaint in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godhra on 4.11.2003 alleging the commission of offences under sections 402, 465, 467, 468, 114 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code as well as section 63(20) of the Copyright Act and sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act.
Mr.
S. K. Patel, learned advocate for the applicant has placed on record a copy of the settlement - agreement arrived at between the parties dated 31.1.2011 whereby, the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them and have agreed that the respondent No.2 shall withdraw the complaint lodged by him. He has, accordingly, urged that in the light of the above settlement, the complaint in question is required to be quashed.
Mr.
Sunil Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has reiterated the submissions advanced by Mr. S. K. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, and has submitted that in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the respondent No.2 has no objection if the complaint is quashed.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 has held thus:
"6.
We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."
Examining the facts of the case in the light of the settled legal position, the dispute in question is a private dispute between the applicant and the respondent No.2 and the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them. Under the circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served if the proceedings are permitted to continue inasmuch as, there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise of futility. In the circumstances, this is a fit case for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code.
For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The complaint being M. Case No.58 of 2003 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godhra is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
[HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar* Top