Allowed

Ashok Chunilal Joshi v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC4 Dec 2013CR.MA/8386/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gujarat High Court granted a Criminal Misc. Application filed by a practicing lawyer to quash an FIR involving cheating and extortion. Relying on a joint settlement statement and Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that continuing prosecution served no purpose in this purely civil dispute.

What did the court decide?

The FIR bearing I-CR no. 12/2009 dated 17/1/2009 for offences under Sections 447, 384, and 114 IPC against the applicant was quashed and set aside.

Ashok Chunilal Joshi Vs State of Gujarat — Quashing and FIR | Gujarat HC (2013)

¶1

R/CR.MA/8386/2009 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8386 of 2009

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

¶6

===========================================================

¶7

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶8

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶9

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

¶10

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶11

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

¶12

================================================================

¶13

ASHOK CHUNILAL JOSHI....Applicant(s)

¶14

Versus

¶15

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)

¶16

================================================================

¶17

Appearance:

¶18

MR MEHUL H RATHOD, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NIRAD D BUCH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR NEERAJ B SONI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶19

================================================================

¶20

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

¶21

Date : 04/12/2013

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Page 1 of 4

¶24

R/CR.MA/8386/2009 JUDGMENT

¶25

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kishor Prajapati for learned advocate Mr. M.H.Rathod on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Mr. Hitendra Rajput for learned advocate Mr. N.D.Buch on behalf of respondent no. 2 and learned APP Mr. Neeraj Soni appearing for respondent no. 1 State.

¶26

2. The present application is filed to quash FIR being I-CR No. 12/2009 lodged with Deesa Rural Police Station on 17/1/2009 by respondent no. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 384 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The brief facts of the present case is that the applicant is a practicing lawyer at Deesa. One Mr. Santilal and his relatives were his regular client. On 13/1/2009, said Mr. Shantilal contacted the applicant for legal assistance to protect the possession of land being survey no. 254 of Moje Bhoyan, (“the subject land”, for short) as D.S.P., Banaskantha and Police Inspector, Deesa Rural Police Station were started to divest him from lawful possession. Therefore, regular Civil Suit no. 7/2009 came to be instituted for permanent injunction in the court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Deesa. The application exh 6 was taken out in the said suit for appointment of Court Commissioner, which was granted by the Court. After serving of the notice of the suit, the vendor of the land was trying to take away forcefully possession of the subject land. Therefore, the complaint was lodged

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

R/CR.MA/8386/2009 JUDGMENT

¶29

with the police station but no action was taken
by the police authority, on the contrary,
harassment by the police continued. Ultimately,
respondent no. 2 has lodged complaint - Annexure
“F” against the applicant for the offences
punishable under Sections 447, 384 and 114 of
Indian Penal Code. The applicant obtained
anticipatory bail and subsequently he also got
regular bail. At the same time, the applicant
approached this Court under section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the
complaint by preferring this application.

¶30

3. Learned advocates appearing for the parties have made joint statement before this Court that the dispute is settled between the parties and respondent no. 2 does not propose to press the FIR, Annexure “F”.

¶31

4. Learned advocate appearing for the contesting parties i.e. the applicant and respondent no. 2 are not at conflict that the dispute is settled. It appears from the documents made available on the record of the application that the dispute between the applicant and respondent no. 2 essentially civil in nature and the society at large is not affected with the dispute between them. Since the parties have amicably settled their private dispute, no fruitful purpose would be served if the criminal prosecution is allowed to continue. Even if the dispute goes for trial

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

R/CR.MA/8386/2009 JUDGMENT

¶34

to the Court, the chance of conviction is remote
and very bleak. Under the circumstances, this is
a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested in
this Court under section 482 of the Code in
quashing the FIR annexure F. My view is
fortified by latests judgement of the Apex Court
in case of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and
(ii) Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors Vs. Babita
Raghuvanshi and Anr reported in 2013 (4) SCC 58.

¶35

5. The offshoot of the above discussion is that the present application deserves to be accepted and accordingly, it is allowed. The FIR being I-CR no. 12/2009 dated 17/1/2009 lodged with Deesa Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 384 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicant, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶36

6. Rule is made absolute.

¶37

(A.G.URAIZEE,J)

¶38

*asma

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Ashok Chunilal Joshi v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Chunilal Joshi v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Solanki (Chamar) Ratilal Jagabhai Vs State of Gujarat

Pamar Somabhai Chaturbhai Vs State of Gujarat

Ahmedabad District Co. Op Bank Ltd. Vs Deepali Mahila Gruh Udhyog Audhyogik Sahakari Mandli Ltd.

Sameer Mehmoodbhai Rangrez Vs State of Gujarat

Bhaskar Chandra Mohanti Vs State of Gujarat

Radhelal Hiralal Nimavat Vs State of Gujarat'