Allowed

Darshan Bharatbhai Kothari v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC16 Feb 2022CR.MA/16445/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge Court of Gujarat quashed a criminal complaint involving offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC on settled grounds. The Court observed the dispute was private in nature and noted the complainant's consent to quash proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned complaint C.R. No. 11191010201437 of 2020 and all proceedings arising therefrom were quashed qua the applicant. The rule was made absolute.

Darshan Bharatbhai Kothari Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

R/CR.MA/16445/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16445 of 2020

¶4

With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 1 of 2021

¶5

In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16445 of 2020

¶6

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

¶7

DARSHAN BHARATBHAI KOTHARI

¶8

Versus

¶9

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance:

¶12

MR SAURIN A MEHTA(470) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NIMIT Y SHUKLA(8338) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR O I PATHAN with MR RS ZEENA (7684) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS MD MEHTA, ASSISTANT 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 Mr. Saurin A. Mehta with learned

¶18

Advocate Mr. Nimit Y. Shukla on behalf of the applicant and learned APP Ms. M. D. Mehta for the respondent-State, learned Advocate Mr. O. I. Pathan with learned Advocate Mr. R. S. Zeena on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

¶19

Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. Mehta would waive

¶20

service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State, learned Advocate Mr. Saurin Mehta with learned Advocate Mr. Nimit Y. Shukla would waive

¶21

service of rule on behalf of the applicant and learned Advocate Mr. O. I.

¶22

Page 1 of 5

¶23

R/CR.MA/16445/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022

¶24

Pathan with learned Advocate Mr. R. S. Zeena would waive service of rule on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

¶25

By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks for quashment of FIR being C. R. No. 11191010201437 of 2020 registered with the Madhavpura Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad on 24.08.2020 for offences punishable under Sections-406, 420, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta would submit that while the petition had been preferred praying for quashing of the complaint on its merits, later on, the parties have settled the matter inter se and therefore, would submit that the impugned complaint may be quashed.

¶27

Submissions of learned Advocate Mr. Mehta are supported by learned Advocate Mr. Pathan and learned Advocate Mr. Zeena appearing on behalf of the original complainant. Learned Advocate Mr. Pathan and learned Advocate Mr. Zeena would submit that the original complainant has submitted an affidavit, whereby the fact of settlement between the parties is mentioned and the consent of the complainant for quashing of the complaint is also been stated.

¶28

Page 2 of 5

¶29

R/CR.MA/16445/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022

¶30

At this stage, learned Advocate Mr. Mehta would submit that while the complainant as well as the applicant have settled but in the affidavit filed by the complainant it is stated that the accused has given the amount and whereas learned Advocate Mr. Mehta would clarify that it is not the present applicant who has given the amount to the complainant and whereas learned Advocate Mr. Mehta would further submit that the amount was due from accused no. 1 and repaid by the same accused.

¶31

Learned Advocate Mr. Pathan and learned Advocate Mr. Zeena appearing on behalf of the complainant would further submit that the complainant is present and that he may be permitted to join the meeting. Permission is granted. Upon joining the meeting, the complainant who is identified by learned Advocate Mr. Pathan, upon inquiry by this Court, would submit that the matter is settled between the parties and would further submit he would not have any objection if the complaint impugned is quashed.

¶32

Learned APP Ms. Mehta would submit that since the FIR is with regard to a personal dispute between the parties, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶33

Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocates

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

R/CR.MA/16445/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022

¶36

for the parties and having perused the record, more particularly, the FIR, this Court is of the opinion that the dispute concerned as alleged in the FIR is of a private in nature. This Court also having considered the fact of settlement and the consent of the complaint, is of the considered opinion that permitting the complaint FIR to proceed further, in view of the settlement between the parties would be nothing but an exercise in futility.

¶37

This Court relies upon the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 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 said conclusion.

¶38

Having regard to the same, the impugned complaint being C. R. No. 11191010201437 of 2020 registered with the Madhavpura Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad on 24.08.2020 for offences punishable under Sections-406, 420, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and any proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the applicant herein.

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

R/CR.MA/16445/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022

¶41

Direct service is permitted.

¶42

In view of the orders passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 16445 of the 2020, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2021 would not survive and the same is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

¶43

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)

¶44

Mrs. J. J. Kedia

¶45

Page 5 of 5

Darshan Bharatbhai Kothari v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Bharatbhai Kothari 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

Lalbhadur Ram Akbaal Sharma Vs State of Gujarat

Dhaivat Chandrakant Bhavsar Vs State of Gujarat