Gujarat High Court
Mahipatsinh Hemubhai Jadav vs State Of Gujarat on 7 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4961/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4961 of 2025
==========================================================
MAHIPATSINH HEMUBHAI JADAV
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. SHRUTI PATHAK, LD.ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 07/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By this application under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report being C.R. No.11211025250148 of 2025 registered before the Joravarnagar Police Station at Surendragar for the offence punishable under sections 281 and 352 of the BNS, 2023 as well as under Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present application are that at around 6:30 in the evening, the complainant and his sister was coming back to home in Alto car, and at around 8:30 in the night, when the complainant was passing through Joravarnagar Vardan Hospital, one Brezza car from the Sava Hospital road came in sudden and the driver of the car was driving the car rashly and negligently, and it was about to clash, but complainant shouted and informed to stop the vehicle. It is further alleged in the complaint that then one police officer, i.e., the present applicant came out of the car who seems to be in a drunken condition, and then started Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 00:27:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4961/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined abusing the complainant, whereupon, the complainant called the Surendrangar District Control Room and informed about the incident. In the interregnum, as the people from around gathered there, the applicant took advantage of the same, and fled away. Thereafter, the Joravarnagar police reached there, and upon search being carried out of the applicant's car, foreign liquor as well as beer were found inside the car. Therefore, the impugned FIR came to be registered.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant herein is a public servant against whom, due to some minor dispute between the applicant and the complainant following an accident, an FIR came to be lodged by the complainant. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR investigation has also been commenced, however, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the matter has already been amicably settled between the parties, and the complainant is no longer desirous of prosecuting further with the First Information Report. He further submits that the dispute is between the two individuals, who have now decided to bury all the differences between them by arriving at an amicable settlement, and as such, the dispute being private in nature and being amicably settled between the two individuals, the present application is required to be entertained and the FIR is required to be quashed and set aside. Even in case if the investigation is permitted to be continued and trial would also be proceeded with, the same would be nothing but an exercise in futile as the complainant would now not support the case of the prosecution and ultimately at the end of day, in the absence of any concrete Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 00:27:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4961/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined evidence being produced by the complainant, the resultant effect would be the acquittal of the applicant, and therefore, proceeding further with the trial is nothing but a waste of valuable judicial time. Leaned advocate Mr. Mehta submits that the complainant himself has remained present before this Court to confirm the settlement, and in this regard, the complainant has also filed an affidavit confirming the settlement. He, therefore, prays that on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the present application may be allowed and the FIR may be quashed.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Dimple Dhamani has entered appearance on behalf of the original complainant and she has identified the complainant who is present in the Court. She submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the complainant and the accused, and the complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR filed against the applicant is quashed and set aside.
5. Learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak appearing for the respondent-State has opposed the present application and submits that the allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR are quite serious in nature. She further submits that the applicant herein is a public servant and was on his official duty when the incident took place. Learned APP also submits that as per the FIR, the applicant was found to be in drunken condition when the alleged incident had taken place. She submits that it is alleged in the FIR that after the occurrence of the incident, the applicant ran away from the place leaving the car over there. The complainant called the jurisdictional Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 00:27:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4961/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined police, who immediately reached there, and upon search being carried out of the vehicle of the applicant, prohibited liquor was found inside the said vehicle of the applicant. She submits that liquor is prohibited in the State of Gujarat, and it is the duty of the police to prevent such an illegal activities within the State, however, in the case on hand, the applicant, being a police officer, instead of his duty to nab the persons indulged in such kind of illegal activities, himself has found in an intoxicated condition having liquor in his car. In short, in this case, it can be said that the protector of law has become the perpetrator. Learned APP also submits that looking to the allegations levelled in the FIR and the nature of the Muddamal recovered from the car of the applicant, which is prohibited within the State, the interest of the State is very much there in the present case. The contraband liquor is declared prohibited by the State of Gujarat and the applicant is also a public servant who is found in a drunken condition while on duty as also in possession of contraband liquor, and as such, the dispute involved in the present case, no longer remains to be private in nature between the two individuals. Learned APP also submits that there are similar kind of antecedents against the applicant, and as such, it seems that he is habitual of committing such kind of offence, and as such, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, as well as the allegations levelled against the applicant and the evidence collected by the investigating officer so far, the present application may not be entertained.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, the Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 00:27:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4961/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined only question that falls for my consideration is whether the present application filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could have been allowed and the impugned FIR could have been quashed on the basis of a settlement between the complainant and the accused named in the FIR. The answer to the aforesaid question cannot, but be in the negative.
7. In Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P., (2008) 8 SCC 781, the Supreme Court held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.
8. In exceptional cases, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court might in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 quash criminal proceedings. However, interference would only be justified when the complaint did not disclose any offence, or was patently frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, as held by this Court in Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar.
9. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.686/2014, the Supreme Court held that in case of heinous and serious offences, which are generally to be treated as crime against society, it is the duty of the State to punish the offender. Hence, even when there is a settlement, the view of the offender and victim will not prevail since it is in the interest of society that the offender should be punished to deter others from committing a similar crime.
10. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 00:27:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4961/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined 2019 (5) SCC 688, a three-Judge Bench discussed the earlier judgments of the Supreme and laid down the following principles:-
"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-
compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;
15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 00:27:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4961/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether Page 18 incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [(2014) 6 SCC 466: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc."
11. In Arun Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary and Another, AIR 2020 SC 1758 the Supreme Court held:-
"14. In another decision in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] it has been observed that in respect of offence against the society it is the duty to punish the offender. Hence, even where there is a settlement between the offender and victim the same shall not prevail since it is in interests of Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 00:27:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4961/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined the society that offender should be punished which acts as deterrent for others from committing similar crime. On the other hand, there may be offences falling in the category where the correctional objective of criminal law would have to be given more weightage than the theory of deterrent punishment. In such cases, the Page 19 court may be of the opinion that a settlement between the parties would lead to better relations between them and would resolve a festering private dispute and thus may exercise power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings or the complaint or the FIR as the case may be.
15. Bearing in mind the above principles which have been laiddown, we are of the view that offences for which the appellants have been charged are in fact offences against society and not private in nature. Such offences have serious impact upon society and continuance of trial of such cases is founded on the overriding effect of public interests in punishing persons for such serious offences. It is neither an offence arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or such similar transactions or has any element of civil dispute thus it stands on a distinct footing. In such cases, settlement even if arrived at between the complainant and the accused, the same cannot constitute a valid ground to quash the FIR or the charge-sheet.
16. Thus the High Court cannot be said to be unjustified in refusing to quash the charge-sheet on the ground of compromise between the parties."
12. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2012 SC (Cri) 1796, the Supreme Court discussed the circumstances in which the High Court quashes criminal proceedings in case of a non- compoundable offence, when there is a settlement between the parties and enunciated the following principles:-
"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 00:27:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4961/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined opinion, continuation of criminal Page 13 proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed".
13. Offence under Section 281 of the BNS is a non- compoundable offence. Of course, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is wide and can even be exercised to quash criminal proceedings relating to Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 00:27:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4961/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined non-compoundable offences, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Where the victim and offender have compromised disputes essentially civil and personal in nature, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings. In what cases power to quash an FIR or a criminal complaint or criminal proceedings upon compromise can be exercised, would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case.
14. However, before exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR, criminal complaint and/or criminal proceedings, the High Court, should have to be kept in mind the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victim. The crime alleged to have been committed in the present case is neither private nor civil in nature. The same is against the society. In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence falls within the ambit of crime against society. It is true that the offence alleged in the impugned FIR is for rash and negligent driving as also to provoke the breach of peace, which can be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties in normal course. However, the present case does not fall within the normal category of cases. Here the perpetrator is a public servant, and that too working in the police department, whose duty is to protect the public at large. In the case on hand, as per the FIR, the applicant was driving his car rashly and negligently and about to collide with the car of the Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 00:27:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4961/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined complainant. Then, upon being reprimanded by the complainant, the applicant came out from the car in the police uniform and started hurling abuses to the complainant. It is also alleged that then the applicant left the place of occurrence leaving his car over there, and upon local police being called by the complainant thereafter, the police reached there, and upon search being carried out in the car of the applicant, prohibited liquor was found. It is true that the offence as alleged is a Magistrate triable offence. Day in and day out, number of prohibition offences are come on surface, and are being put to an end on one ground or the other. However, in the case on hand, the offence as alleged can be said to be heinous in nature having serious impact on the Society as the applicant herein is a police officer having been found indulged in doing such an illegal act while on duty. Moreover, the possibility of buying off and pressurizing the complainant by the applicant under the pretext of being a police officer, also cannot be disregarded. Thus, quashing of an FIRs and/or complaints in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, only on basis of an agreement with the complainant, would set a dangerous precedent.
15. Furthermore, in Criminal Jurisprudence, the position of the complainant is only that of the informant. Once an FIR and/or criminal complaint is lodged and a criminal case is started by the State, it becomes a matter between the State and the accused. The State has a duty to ensure that law and order is maintained in society. It is for the state to prosecute offenders. In case of grave and serious non-compoundable offences which impact society, the informant and/or complainant only has the Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 00:27:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4961/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined right of hearing, to the extent of ensuring that justice is done by conviction and punishment of the offender. An informant has no right in law to withdraw the complaint of a non- compoundable offence of a grave, serious and/or heinous nature, which impacts society.
16. In my considered opinion, the criminal proceeding cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. only because there is a settlement between the complainant and the accused. As stated above, looking to the allegations made in the FIR being levelled against a public servant working in the most trusted organization, and when the police officers have turned rogue, then the same is infinitely more dangerous than the criminals they pursue daily. The case has to thus proceed towards the trial and any interference at the end of this Court at this stage shall amount to abuse of the process of law.
17. For the foregoing reasons, the present application fails and is hereby rejected.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) VAHID Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 00:27:53 IST 2025