Vanrajsinh Pravinsinh Deval vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 11056 Guj

     R/CR.MA/2639/2021                                       ORDER DATED: 09/08/2021



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2639 of 2021
                                With
             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 14867 of 2020
                                With
             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16478 of 2020
                                With
             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16706 of 2020
                                With
             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19458 of 2020
==========================================================
                 VIJAYSINH SANJAYSINH (HAKUBHA) JADEJA
                                  Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AB GATESHANIYA(3766) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR DILIP P JOSHI(1819) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. MONALI BHATT, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                               Date : 09/08/2021

                                   ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Dilip Joshi, learned advocate, waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents Nos.1 & 2 respectively.

2. This applications have been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the complaint being FIR No.11993003201561 of 2020 registered with Anjar Police Station, Dist.: Kutch for offfences punishable under sections 397, 365, 341, 323 and 120(B) of IPC and section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

R/CR.MA/2639/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/08/2021

3. The learned advocates for the applicants in the respective petitions, submitted that the matter is settled between the parties. It is submitted that 25110 kg pistachio worth Rs. 1,44,27,336/- was loaded at Mundra and the same was to be unloaded at Mumbai. It is submitted that the muddamal is recovered. Thus, it is submitted that since parties have settled the dispute amicably outside the Court and there remains no grievance between them, in the larger interest of the society, the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside.

4. Mr. Dilip Joshi, learned advocate for respondent no.2, original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocates appearing for the applicants.

5. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that any First Information Report should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein.

6. The compromise affidavit of Mr. Jaskaransingh Harvindersingh Chadha on behalf of Principle-cum-employer of respondent No.2 and Affidavit of Sangeeta Puri, Wife of Rakesh Puri of Arassia International, Mumbai are on record.

6.1 Mr. Jaskaransingh Harvindersingh Chadha on behalf of Principle-cum-employer of respondent No.2 has stated that he is doing business in the name and style of VRC Logistics Pvt. Ltd. in which he is Director of the Company. He states that their driver Lavkush Ramsinh Nishadh, who had lodged the

R/CR.MA/2639/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/08/2021

complaint in the capacity as driver of the company, has left the job with their Company. He has further stated that their company being the affected party, has no objection if the impugned FIR against the present applicants is quashed. He further states that the dispute with the applicants is amicably settled and does not desire to prosecute the applicants any further. He has stated that the Company had passed resolution on 23.12.2020 that Raj Kishan Sharma, Son of Khushi Ram Sharma is authorized to appear on behalf of the company in the impugned FIR.

6.2 In her affidavit, Sangeeta Puri, wife of Rakesh Puri of Arassia International Mumbai states that they engaged VRC Logistics Pvt. Ltd. for logistics support in transporting goods through truck No. HR-67B-9991 on 9.9.2020 The company was made aware of the incident dated 9.9.2020 pursuant to which complaint being FIR No. 11993003201561 of 2020 was registered with Anjar Police Station, District: Kutch and subsequently the consignment being transported in the said truck was recovered which safely reached to the desired location and the same is confirmed by her team. The deponent being consignee of the goods, is satisfied and holds no grievance in any capacity. She further states that VRC Logistics Pvt. Ltd. on the due satisfaction and consent of the parties including the driver, has no personal enmity/ grudges against the accused and they have settled the matter amicably and has urged to quash the proceedings in totality.

7. Mr. Rajesh Sharma is before this virtual Court through Office of Mr. Joshi learned advocate. He is authorised by Director Mr. Jaskaransingh Harvindersingh Chadha of VRC

R/CR.MA/2639/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/08/2021

Logistics Pvt. Ltd. He submitted that affidavit is already been filed by the competent person Mr. Jaskaransingh Harvindersingh Chadha and he is authorised before the Court to affirm the said affidavit and to do needful in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 19458 of 2020, 14867 of 2020, 16706 of 2020 and 16478 of 2020. He has stated that the applicants are youngsters and they are local agriculturists and state that that representatives of the community of the applicants had settled the issue and since the goods consigned were found and were safely delivered to consignee and Sangeeta Puri, wife of Rakesh Puri of Arassia International Mumbai has affirmed the said fact in the affidavit and since no grudge remains, for the well-being of the applicants and for their better future, has urged to quash the FIR.

8. It is true that the offences alleged against the applicants under the Indian Penal Code are non-compoundable and that some of the offences could be compounded with the permission of the Court. Considering the principle 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

R/CR.MA/2639/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/08/2021

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 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."

R/CR.MA/2639/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/08/2021

9. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Apex Court had the occasion to consider the issue as to whether an FIR lodged for the 2 offences punishable under sections 307 and 34 IPC could be quashed on the basis of the settlement between the parties. While considering the said issue, the Apex Court observed in para-13 thus:

"13. 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:

(i) 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;

(ii) 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;

(iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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;

(iv) 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

R/CR.MA/2639/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/08/2021

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 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 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/delegate 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 paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

(v) 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 impart 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."

10. In the present case, the impugned complaint was filed on 10.09.2020 and the compromise affidavit of Mr. Jaskaransingh Harvindersingh Chadha, on behalf of Principle-cum-employer of respondent No.2, and Affidavit of Sangeeta Puri, Wife of Rakesh Puri of Arassia International, Mumbai, regarding settlement of the dispute has been placed on record.

R/CR.MA/2639/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/08/2021

Admittedly, the dispute is a private and personal affair. The injury sustained does not involve any mental depravity nor amounts to a heinous crime. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, there exists no scope for any further proceeding in the matter. The continuance of proceedings would lead to wastage of precious judicial time as there would remain no possibility of any conviction in the case. Hence, the Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case where the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could be exercised for securing the ends of justice.

11. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The impugned first information report bearing being FIR No.11993003201561 of 2020 registered with Anjar Police Station, Dist.: Kutch and the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside against the present applicants. Rule is made absolute.

(GITA GOPI,J) SAJ GEORGE