Gujarat High Court
Patel Kiritbhai Chimanlal vs State Of Gujarat on 14 February, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2010 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 176 of 2010
==========================================================
PATEL KIRITBHAI CHIMANLAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PIYUSH B TRIVEDI for MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
MR. AAMIR S PATHAN(7142) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 14/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. The present application has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") challenging the judgment and order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Patan in Special Atrocity Case no.55 of 2008, whereby the discharge application of the accused came to be rejected. The FIR bearing CR no.II-149/2008 dated 20.8.2008 was registered with Patan City Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act").
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 23:58:21 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/176/2010 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined
3. Earlier on 7.2.2025, the complainant had appeared along with learned advocate Mr. Aamir Pathan. The complainant stated that she wanted to get compounded the matter and thus, has asked permission of the Court. She had also stated that she would file an affidavit to that regard. Exemption was also given to the complainant and her presence was dispensed with for today.
4. As per the affidavit, as stated by her on earlier date i.e. on 7.2.2025, there was no such intention of the accused to even insult her and she stated that she had gone to inquire about operation of the daughter of Narsinhbhai Suthar-Meenaben and during the talk, the complainant had gone to the office of the trustee to inquire about the status and since the accused was sitting there in the office of the trustee, he had asked her to go out by just holding her hand. The complainant stated that the applicant had no such malafide intention, but because of the constraint circumstances, she had filed the complaint.
5. Since the complainant herself has expressed her desire to settle the dispute and compound the matter, she had asked permission of this Court. This Court is of the opinion that the issue is very minor and does not affect the physical or mental health of the complainant and further the settlement would bring the peace in the society and no ill-will would remain between the parties.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 23:58:21 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/176/2010 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined
6. This Court has heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and has perused the material on record. Considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the present matter would fall under the criteria laid down therein. In paragraph-61 of the said judgment, it has been observed thus:
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus:
the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 23:58:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/176/2010 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
7. In the case of Parthvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Others reported in [(2020) 4 SCC 727], while dealing with the constitutional validity of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, it was held as Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 23:58:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/176/2010 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined under:-
"12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameter, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear and no argument to the contrary has been raised."
8. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in another decision in the case of Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhatisgarh, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 547, wherein it has been held as under:
"The Constitution itself, in no uncertain terms, demands that the State shall strive, incessantly and consistently, to promote fraternity amongst all citizens such that dignity of every citizen is protected, nourished and promoted."
9. In view of the settlement and observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the prayer for compounding the offence is required to be allowed since Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC is compounded at the instance of the parties and the corresponding provision as is found under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and as noted in the referred judgments when the parties decide to settle which would lead to peace in the society, then such approach is required to be encouraged and appreciated.
10. In the result, the judgment and order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 23:58:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/176/2010 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined Judge and Special Judge, Patan in Special Atrocity Case no.55 of 2008 is quashed and set aside and the accused is ordered to be discharged. The proceedings of the FIR bearing CR no.II-149/2008 dated 20.8.2008 registered with Patan City Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are also quashed and set aside. The learned Special Court, thus, would dispose of Special Atrocity Case no.55 of 2008 in view of the present order.
11. Accordingly, the present application is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(GITA GOPI,J) Maulik Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 23:58:21 IST 2025