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

Swetaben vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|01 May, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Upon the joint request made by the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash and set aside the Criminal Case being M. Case No.4 of 2007 filed before learned JMFC, Umreth for the offences punishable under sections 380, 406 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. At the outset, learned advocates for the private parties submit that the dispute between the parties is amicably settled since the complainant realized the mistake and proceedings were initiated in a haste and there was no ill-treatment, harassment or cruelty. It is further submitted that the complainant has filed affidavit dated 16.04.2012 stating that he has no objection if the impugned complaint is quashed.
4. In view of the above, it is jointly submitted that subjecting the petitioner to the rigour of trial would result into undue hardship and considering the nature of allegations and dispute it is desirable that impugned complaint and other proceedings pursuant to the said complaint be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of; [I] Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, [2008]9 SCC 677 and [ii] Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, [2008]4 SCC 582.
5. Heard learned advocates for the private parties and learned APP for the respondent - State of Gujarat and perused the record of the case.
6. In the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, [2008]9 SCC 677, the Apex Court has held that when a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have withdrawn all claims and allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing the criminal proceedings since the same would be a futile exercise. In the facts of the said case also, the offences alleged were similar in nature.
7. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, [2008]4 SCC 582, the Apex Court has made the following observations:
[6] We need to emphasis 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 utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and benefit of the technicalities of the law".
8. Considering the fact that the dispute is now amicably settled between the parties and the complainant has filed affidavit stating that he has no objection if the impugned complaint is quashed and considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of [i] Nikhil Merchant [supra] and [ii] Madan Mohan Abbot [supra], I am inclined to exercise powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned complaint and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside.
The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
Direct service is permitted.
[Anant S. Dave, J.] *pvv 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

Swetaben vs State

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
01 May, 2012