Allowed

Lalbhadur Ram Akbaal Sharma v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC16 Feb 2022CR.MA/16003/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR and consequent proceedings for forgery and cheating offences after the parties settled the dispute and the original complainant confirmed his consent to quash during a court-meeting.

What did the court decide?

FIR C.R. No. I-361 of 2013 and consequential proceedings were quashed with the rule made absolute.

Lalbhadur Ram Akbaal Sharma Vs State of Gujarat — Cheque Dishonour | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

R/CR.MA/16003/2013 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16003 of 2013

¶4

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

¶5

LALBHADUR RAM AKBAAL SHARMA & 3 other(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR SK PATEL(654) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4

¶11

MR MAHARSHI PATEL for HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

¶12

MS MAITHILI D MEHTA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

¶15

Date : 16/02/2022

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

Heard learned Advocate Shri S.K. Patel on behalf of the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili D. Mehta on behalf of respondent no.1- State and learned Advocate Shri Maharshi Patel for HL Patel Advocates on behalf of respondent no.2- original complainant.

¶18

Rule. Learned APP Ms. Mehta waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1- State and learned Advocate Shri Maharshi Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.2- original complainant.

¶19

By way of this application the petitioners pray for quashing of FIR being C.R. No. I- 361 of 2013 registered with Vatva Police Station, District: Ahmedabad on 06.07.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 445, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

R/CR.MA/16003/2013 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022

¶22

Learned Advocate Shri S.K. Patel on behalf of the petitioners would submit that originally the petition had been preferred praying for quashment of the complaint on its merits, pending the present petition, the parties have settled the dispute inter se and whereas under such circumstances he would request that this Court may quash the present FIR on the ground of settlement.

¶23

Learned Advocate Shri Maharshi Patel on behalf of the respondent no.2- original complainant supports and confirms the submissions made by learned Advocate Shri S.K. Patel. Learned Advocate Shri Maharshi Patel would submit that while an affidavit confirming the fact of settlement and also stating the consent of the original complainant for quashing of the impugned FIR has been filed, learned Advocate would further submit that the complainant is present and he may be permitted to join the meeting. Permission is granted. Upon permission being granted and upon joining the meeting the complainant -Mohammad Aarif Sagir Ahmed Kirmani who is identified by learned Advocate Shri Maharshi Patel, upon inquiry by this Court confirms the fact of settlement and would submit that he would not have any objection if the complaint impugned is quashed against the petitioners herein.

¶24

Learned APP Ms. Mehta would submit that while the allegations levelled in the FIR are very serious but since the matter is settled inter se between the parties, therefore this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶25

Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents including the FIR, this Court is of the opinion that since the dispute as alleged in the FIR being a private dispute between the parties and since it is submitted that the matter is settled inter se and whereas the complainant appearing in the meeting confirmed the said fact and also stated his consent with regard to the

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

R/CR.MA/16003/2013 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022

¶28

impugned FIR being quashed, in the considered opinion of this Court permitting the FIR and any proceedings arising therefrom to continue any further would be an exercise in futility. This Court relies upon the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab , reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors. , reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) to arrive at the above conclusion.

¶29

Having regard to the same, Criminal Complaint being FIR being C.R. No.I- 361 of 2013 registered with Vatva Police Station under Sections 419, 420, 445, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penald Code and consequential proceedings arising from the impugned complaint qua the the present petitioners are quashed. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.

¶30

Direct service is permitted.

¶31

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)

¶32

NIRU

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Lalbhadur Ram Akbaal Sharma v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalbhadur Ram Akbaal Sharma 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

Bharatbhai Naranbhai Thakore Vs State of Gujarat

Jayantilal Nagarbhai Thakore Vs State of Gujarat

Shardaben Jagdishbhai Raval Vs State of Gujarat

Pravinbhai Raychand Shah Thro Priyank Pravinbhai Shah Vs State of Gujarat

Darshan Bharatbhai Kothari Vs State of Gujarat

Dhaivat Chandrakant Bhavsar Vs State of Gujarat