TRILOKBHAI RAMANLAL PARIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Nanavati learned advocate for the applicants, Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1State and Mr.Dilip L. Kanojiya, learned advocate for respondent No.2original complainant.

(2.) BY way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside Inquiry Case No.15 of 2012 registered with Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad and also F.I.R. registered as M. Case No.12 of 2012 registered with C.I.D. (Crime), Ahmedabad (Rural) pursuant thereto for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) read with Sections 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as all the other consequential proceedings incidental thereto.

(3.) MR .Nanavati, learned advocate for the applicants, has taken this Court through the F.I.R. (at AnnexureA to the application) as well as factual matrix arising out of the present application. It is submitted that applicant No.2 as rescinded the earlier contract and has in fact amicably settled the dispute with respondent No.2original complainant. Reliance was placed upon the affidavit dated 27.12.2012 filed by respondent No.2 in the present proceedings. It is further submitted that even though some of the allegations are noncompoundable, in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties (i.e. respondent No.2 and the present applicants), this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. It is further submitted that the present applicants are shown as accused Nos.6 and 7 and the present application is filed only for the said applicants. It is also submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at, any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. qua the present applicants shall amount to harassment to the applicants and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties trial would be futile and the same would also amount to abuse of process of law and court. It is reiterated that as such the impugned F.I.R. relates to a land transaction, which is predominantly of civil nature and the applicants have in fact relinquished their rights from the land in question, in order secure the ends of justice, this Court may allow the present application as prayed for.