KHUMANSINH BHURUBHAI CHAVDA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Harsh V. Gajjar on behalf of the applicants and learned APP Mr. J. K. Shah on behalf of the respondent- State, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina for learned Advocate Mr. Anil H. Patel for respondent no. 6, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Y. S. Lakhani for learned Advocate Mr. P. K. Pancholi for respondent no. 5.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Yogesh Lakhani for learned Advocate Mr. P. K. Pancholi on behalf of the respondent no. 5 would submit that the respondent no. 5 at the very initial stage of the proceedings, had filed a declaration on oath wherein he had in addition to tendering an unconditional apology also made oral submissions that appearing as the arbitrator in the so called arbitration proceedings and passing orders therein and all subsequent acts in that regard acting as an arbitrator, was purely on account of limited understanding and limited knowledge of the respondent no. 5 in that regard. The said respondent had also under taken that henceforth he would not conduct any arbitration proceedings any time in future. Having regard to the same, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Lakhani would submit that the FIR preferred by the police authorities with regard to the transaction in question may be interfered with by this Court or in the alternative some suitable observations, whereby the subsequent bonafide behavior on part of the respondent no. 5 may be noted by this Court.

(3.) In compliance of order dtd. 23/3/2022, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina would submit that possession of property in question has been handed over to the applicants and whereas the said fact is confirmed by learned Advocate Mr. Harsh Gajjar on behalf of the applicants. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina would further submit that since the possession of the property has been restored in favour of the applicants and since a declaration on oath has been filed by the respondent no. 6 wherein, in addition to tendering an unconditional apology, he has also declared that he has not dealt with the property in question in any manner whatsoever during such period when the possession had been taken over. Under such circumstances learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina would submit that FIR which has been lodged by the police authorities, may be interfered with by this Court, more particularly, considering the subsequent acts on part of the respondent no. 6.