- (1.) THE present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicants-original accused nos. 1 to 3 to quash and set aside the impugned Complaint, being Criminal Case No. 2458/2000 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godhra qua the applicants.
(2.) IT appears that respondent no. 2-original complainant has file the impugned Complaint/Criminal Case against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 465, 466, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Magistrate has issued process/summons against the applicants for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above, the applicants-original accused nos. 1 to 3 have preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Today, when the present application is taken up for final hearing, Shri Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has submitted that apart from the fact that the applicants have not committed any offence as alleged and the dispute being purely of civil nature now the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and even the entire amount due and payable to Dahod Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. has been cleared and paid and even the suits pending between the parties are agreed to be withdrawn. It is submitted that even respondent no. 2 has agreed to quash and set aside the impugned Criminal Complaint. Shri Nitin Amin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2-original complainant has stated at the bar, under instructions from respondent no. 2, that the dispute has been amicably settled between the applicants and respondent no. 2 and he has no objection if the present application is allowed and the impugned Criminal Complaint/Criminal Case is quashed and set aside. He has produced on record the affidavit affirmed by respondent no. 2-original complainant submitting accordingly.
(3.) IN view of the above, the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2008(4) SCC 582; in the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of INvestigation and Anr reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31 as well as in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Ors reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and have requested to quash and set aside the proceedings against the applicants in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case referred to hereinabove and considering the fact that now the applicants and respondent no. 2 have settled the dispute amicably, which prima facie seems to be of a civil nature, it appears to the Court that to continue the proceedings against the applicants shall be unnecessary harassment to the parties and the same shall not be in the interest of parties and, therefore, it appears to the Court that this is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash and set aside the Criminal Case qua the applicants.;