BABUBHAI MAVJIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE .

(2.) MR .Shivang M. Shah, learned counsel appears for respondent No.2 and waives service for Rule. He also identifies the original complainant -Mr.Vinodbhai Naranbhai Patel, who is personally present in the Court. Rest of the respondents also waive service of Rule. Considering the short dispute as also the settlement between the parties, Rule is heard today by consent of the parties. An FIR being I -C.R.No.303/2013 at Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 114, 34, 120B and 507 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) came to be registered against the petitioners and others with regard to the disputed land dealing. The complainant has filed an affidavit at Annexure -C referring to the said FIR and acknowledging the settlement. It is mentioned in the affidavit that the sale deed dated 14.06.2013, which was in question, has now been cancelled on 26.11.2013 by another cancellation deed registered vide No.2626 of 2013. He has also specified that the settlement has been arrived at with five co -owners of the disputed land. Such co -owners have also filed the similar affidavits at Annexure -D (Colly.). The learned counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent would urge this Court to quash the FIR in view of the settlement. Learned APP while vehemently opposing the quashing of the FIR would contend that the offences alleged against the petitioners are serious in nature and would require trial. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 10 SCC 303, the Honble Supreme Court in Paragraph -61 made following observations:

(3.) DIRECT Service is permitted.