CHAUDHARY HITESHBHAI KARSHANBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1. Mr. Sadik A. Ansari, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2 (complainant). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the application is being heard and decided finally.

(2.) By preferring this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( "the Code" for short), the applicants have, inter alia, prayed that the First Information Report being C.R. No.I-31 of 2015, registered with Visnagar Taluka Police Station against the present applicants on 29.03.2015, at the behest of respondent No.2 (complainant) for offences punishable under Sections 394, 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, may be quashed and set aside. The FIR in question was filed against the applicants by respondent No.2 original complainant on the allegations that on 28.03.2015, when the complainant was passing through the Wada of accused, Chaudhary Karshan-bhai Khumabhai, at about 5:30 in the evening, applicant No.1 Chaudhary Hitesh-bhai Karshanbhai all of a sudden ran towards him with a Dhariya in his hands and inflicted a blow, due to which the complainant fell down. It is further alleged that applicant No.2 Chaudhary Karshanbhai Khumabhai, along with applicant Nos.3 and 4, Chaudhary Jayantibhai Khumabhai and Chaudhary Ambaben Karshanbhai respectively, rushed in with iron rods in their hands and soon after, applicant No.4 inflicted a rod blow on the right hand of the complainant. Indiscriminate blows were inflicted by the accused persons. Thereafter, the village people gathered there and the complainant was rescued from further beating. In the process, it is alleged that two gold rings which the complainant was wearing on his fingers were snatched by applicant No.1. The gold chain worn by the complainant was also snatched. Under the circumstances, the FIR in question came to be registered.

(3.) Before this Court, it is the case of the applicants, as endorsed by respondent No.2 (complainant) by filing an affidavit affirmed on 26.05.2015, that the dispute between them has been amicably settled. All of them hail from the same community and are residents of the same village. Feelings of brotherhood now prevail between the parties and a Settlement Deed dated 12.05.2015 has been drawn up between them, which is annexed along with the affidavit. It is further stated by respondent No.2 in the affidavit that in view of the settlement, he has no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed and set aside by this Court.