Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Sankalchand vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|08 May, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

1 Rule.
Service is waived. Upon joint request made by the learned advocates for the parties, both matters are taken up for final disposal.
2 Criminal Misc. Application No.5015 of 2012 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short, 'the Code'] is filed by the applicants to quash the FIR being C.R. No.I-135 of 2003 registered with Himmatnagar Town Police Station, being Criminal Case No.1235 of 2004 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, Criminal Misc. Application No.5016 of 2012 is filed to quash the FIR being C.R. No.I-134 of 2003 registered with Himmatnagar Town Police Station, being Criminal Case No.1234 of 2004 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar, for the same offences. In both the cases, the allegations are against the accused of receiving the amount or assurance given by them to provide employment.
3 Learned counsel for the complainants submits that the amounts referred to in the complaints are handed over to the complainants and they have no objection if the impugned complaints are quashed and set aside and, to that effect, the complainants filed affidavits dated 25.4.2012 in respective cases, which are ordered to be taken on record.
4. Upon verification on record and the antecedents of the each of the applicants, it is found that except these two complaints, no other complaint is filed against them.
5 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 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 complaints are quashed and set aside. Both the applications are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sankalchand vs State

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
08 May, 2012