IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that charges under serious offences require substantial evidence, and settlements can lead to quashing in cases with a civil nature.

ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Mehta waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State and learned Advocate Ms. Shweta Lodha waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the complainant and victims.

2. Learned Advocate for the applicants Mr. Virat Popat makes a prayer for amending the relief prayed for in this Application. Permission as prayed for is granted. The same be carried out forthwith.

3. By way of this application, the prayers are made to the extent of quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21.07.2022 framing the charge passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge at Dhoraji, Rajkot in connection with Sessions Case No.18 of 2022 arising out of the First Information Report (FIR) being C.R. No.11213064220182 of 2022 lodged with Upleta Police Station, Rajkot (Rural) for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 325, 338, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 135 of the G.P. Act, as well as to stay the above impugned order.

4. Learned Advocate for the applicants Mr. Virat Popat states that the facts of the case does not reflect any charge to be framed under Section 307 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the exercise which has been contemplated under Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. prior to framing of charge when in a case being pursued by the prosecution was not followed, the application was rejected and prior to framing of charge, the Discharge Application was moved which came to be rejected and on the very same day, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused.

5. It is further submitted that it was a dispute which had arisen out of some misunderstanding with regard to sand lease. On 27.02.2022, when the witnessses – Chintan Bhikhabhai Kangad and Kishan Khengarbhai Dangar were going towards Village Nilakha on their Hero Honda Splendour motor cycle, it was alleged that the accused had come with their Scorpio Car and keeping grievance in mind regarding the sand lease, dashed the above motor cycle. It is alleged that the said act was with an intention to do away with the witnesses and the accused had been arraigned under Sections 307 and 149 of the IPC, who have formed unlawful assembly for the execution of the common intention. It is also submitted that no injury has been caused by such an act while the offences under Sections 324 and 326 read with Sections 149, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC were also alleged with the accused No.2. It is alleged that the accused No.1 was armed with an iron pipe and the accused No.2 with a wooden stick had assaulted the witnesses and had caused injury in the hands and legs resulting into fracture and also threatened the witnesses with their life.

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Virat Popat has further submitted that both the sides resolved the dispute. The witnesses and the complainant have made a prayer for compounding the offences and the injured as well as the complainant have filed their Affidavits of settlement stating that the parties have amicably settled and have no objection if the application is allowed and the charge framed be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned Advocate Ms. Shweta Lodha appearing for the complainant and the victims affirms the fact of settlement of dispute advanced by learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat appearing for the applicants.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Mehta submitted that any proceedings should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein.

9. Today, the complainant – Vikram Vibhabhai Jallu as well as the witnesses – Chintan Bhikhabhai Kangad and Kishan Khengarbhai Dangar have filed their individual Affidavits stating that the settlement has been arrived at by the intervention of responsible community elders so as to maintain peace and order in the locality and also that business relations continue between the parties.

10. This Court has heard th