The Gujarat High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Ilesh Vora taking note of the facts that despite the Trial had ended and a criminal appeal was ongoing, dismissed a FIR and a conviction order in a matrimonial dispute case, stating that the charges involved were minor and personal in nature. (KAMLESH @ RINKU MOHANLAL UPADHYAY Versus STATE OF GUJARAT)
The bench noted that regardless of whether the Trial has already finished or an Appeal against conviction has been dismissed, the Criminal Procedures involving Non-Heinous Offences or Offences that are primarily of a private nature might be cancelled.
Facts of the case
Respondent No. 2 had lodged the impugned FIR under Sections 498(a), 323, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 and 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 alleging that she had married the original accused No. 1 (Applicant) and after four days of marriage, all the accused had started harassing her for household work and the payment of dowry. The accused No. 1 also abused and beat the Complainant and pursuant to this torture, she left her matrimonial home filed a complaint.
Upon examination of witnesses, the trial court sentenced the accused No. 1 and 2 under Section 498(a) to suffer simple imprisonment of 2 years and a fine of INR 1,000 each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment of one month was awarded. Further, under Section 323 of IPC, the accused No. 1 and 2 were sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of INR 500 each. Under the Dowry Prohibition Act, the accused were sentenced to simple imprisonment of 2 years along with the fine of INR 1500 each and under Section 506(1) of the IPC, the accused No. 3 was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of INR 500 each under Section 506(1).
Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the applicants preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad which is registered as Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2022 wherein the learned Appellate Court was pleased to suspend the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court pending the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the applicants have filed the present application for quashing of impugned FIR, charge-sheet and order of conviction mainly on the ground that the dispute in question which is purely personal in nature, has been amicably settled between the parties and now, continuation of impugned criminal proceedings amounts to sheer abuse of process of law.
Contention of the Parties
Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the dispute has been resolved by way of amicable settlement with the involvement of well- wishers of both the sides. He further submitted that the respondent no.2 has agreed to give consent for quashing of impugned criminal proceedings and she does not want to prosecute the impugned criminal proceedings and considering the nature of dispute no public policy is involved in the case.
He relied on the case of Ramgopal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67811 to submit that having regard to the nature of offence and the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the complainant has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, the High Court can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, even if the offences are non-compoundable.
Ms. Maitri Patel, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 reiterating the facts of settlement affidavit submitted that the informant-respondent no.2 do not wish to prosecute the applicants as the impugned FIR was lodged out of misunderstanding, misconception, desperation, anger and anxiety.
Mr. Manan Maheta, learned APP has vehemently opposed the application mainly on the ground that once conviction is awarded by the trial Court and when appeal is pending before the Appellate Court, the power cannot be exercised under Section 482 of the Code by this Court.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench relying on the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012 10 SCC 303 and Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. reported in 2019 5 SCC 688 remarked, "In light of the settled principle of law, it appears that the criminal proceedings involving non heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction."
The bench allowing the application remarked, "In the facts of the present case, the dispute is private in nature and parties have voluntarily agreed to settle the dispute and there is no coercion undue force on them for arriving at settlement. The offence alleged cannot be serious in nature for quashing of which would overwrite public interest. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that in view of settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings and thus, further continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court and therefore, quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace and harmony between the parties who have decided to forget the dispute. Thus, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code.
Hence, the present application is allowed."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
