BADARSING DADUBHAI VAGHELA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2011-8-58
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on
August 17,2011
BADARSING DADUBHAI VAGHELA
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MADAN MOHAN ABBOT VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]NIKHIL MERCHANT VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ SHARMA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)RULE. Shri K.P. Raval, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1 and Shri Mehul Rathod, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.2 ? original complainant.
(2.)IN the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and as it is reported that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, the present application is taken up for final hearing today.
The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant ? original accused of FIR being C.R. No. I - 222/2010 registered with Deesa Rural Police Station lodged against the applicant ? original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have stated at the bar that even civil dispute between the parties with respect to the very land in question has been settled and Civil Suit No. 61/2009, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deesa, has been withdrawn by the applicant and, therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned FIR/Complaint in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.)THE settlement purshis dated 17/06/2011 affirmed by original complainant is filed by submitting that due to intervention of the family members, dispute has been settled between the parties. It is submitted that the original complainant has no objection, if the impugned FIR/Complaint is quashed and set aside.
Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot V/s. State of Punjab reported in 2008(4) SCC 582; in the case of Nikhil Merchant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2009(1) GLH 31 as well as in the case of Manoj Sharma V/s. State and others reported in 2009(1) GLH 190.
(2.)IN the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and as it is reported that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, the present application is taken up for final hearing today.
The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant ? original accused of FIR being C.R. No. I - 222/2010 registered with Deesa Rural Police Station lodged against the applicant ? original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have stated at the bar that even civil dispute between the parties with respect to the very land in question has been settled and Civil Suit No. 61/2009, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deesa, has been withdrawn by the applicant and, therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned FIR/Complaint in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.)THE settlement purshis dated 17/06/2011 affirmed by original complainant is filed by submitting that due to intervention of the family members, dispute has been settled between the parties. It is submitted that the original complainant has no objection, if the impugned FIR/Complaint is quashed and set aside.
Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot V/s. State of Punjab reported in 2008(4) SCC 582; in the case of Nikhil Merchant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2009(1) GLH 31 as well as in the case of Manoj Sharma V/s. State and others reported in 2009(1) GLH 190.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.