Devkiben Rakeshbhai Vanzara vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 12170 Guj

     R/CR.MA/12642/2021                                 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 12642 of 2021

=============================================
                     DEVKIBEN RAKESHBHAI VANZARA
                                Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MR RAJESH M CHAUHAN(2470) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                            Date : 24/08/2021


                              ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State.

2. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with prayer to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No.II-227 of 2019 registered with Krishnanagar Police Station, Dist.: Ahmedabad City for offfences punishable under sections 506(2) and 114 of IPC, charge-sheet dated 07.09.2019 filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.1, Ahmedabad and/or in alternative permit the complainant, present applicant, to withdraw the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

R/CR.MA/12642/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021

3. Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh M.Chauhan submits that, the complaint is lodged under Sections 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and the charge-sheet is filed under Section 506(1) and 114 of IPC. It is stated that the petitioner was in love relationship with Rakeshbhai Hiralal Vanzara and because of the status differences, the relation was not accepted by the father of the Rakeshbhai. Subsequently, the family accepted the relationship and marriage was solemnized on 19.04.2019 and when the said fact came to the knowledge of some of the representatives of the community, they opposed the marriage and threat was given to the petitioner to take divorce from her husband. Therefore, the FIR came to be lodged against four alleged persons.

3.1 It is stated by Mr. Chauhan that the representatives of the society members have gathered and settled the dispute and because of the intervention, she proposes to withdraw the complaint filed by her. He submits that the FIR was filed under sections 506(2) and 114 of IPC, but inadvertently by some typing error the charge-sheet is filed under sections 506(1) and 114 of IPC.

3.2 Relying on the observations made in Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.5804 of 2015, Mr.

R/CR.MA/12642/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021

Chauhan submits that, this Court by exercising the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can order withdrawal of the complaint, when the original complainant does not proposes to pursue with the FIR.

4. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned APP submits that section 321 Cr.P.C. only authorises public prosecutor, in- charge of a case, with the consent of the Court, to withdraw from the prosecution and upon such withdrawal; if it is made before the framing of charge, then the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences and if it made after the charges are framed, the accused may be acquitted in respect of the offences. He submits that any First Information Report should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein.

5. This Court has heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. In the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, the Hon'ble Apex Court summarized the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. The present petitioner, as a defacto complainant, has prayed for

R/CR.MA/12642/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021

quashing of the complaint and the subsequent proceedings thereafter or in alternative, had sought permission for withdrawal of the complaint. 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 capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil

R/CR.MA/12642/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021

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."

6. Section 321 Cr.P.C. enumerates that withdrawal from the prosecution by the public prosecutor, is permitted with the consent of the Court. The public prosecutor is required to act objectively, as he is the officer of the Court and besides that the Court are also free to assess whether it is prima facie permissible to

R/CR.MA/12642/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021

withdraw from the prosecution.

7. In the case of Chimanlal J.Gandhi, LR of Natverlal Jesingbhai Shah (decd) VS. Anilbhai R.Bakeri, reported in 1997 (2) GLR 1179, it is observed that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised to secure the ends of justice and when the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (supra) has considered the facts of exercising the power to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court, empowers this Court to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR, when the offender or the victim have settled the dispute and such considerations can also be extended in a case where the defacto complainant herself has expressed her desire to maintain peace and harmony between the members of both the families and the community and when the representative of the society has intervened for settlement, the petitioner proposes to withdraw the present complaint.

8. In view of the above discussions and observations, the petition is allowed. In view of the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the FIR being C.R. No.II-227 of 2019 registered with Krishnanagar Police Station, Dist.: Ahmedabad City, charge-sheet dated 07.09.2019 and the proceedings

R/CR.MA/12642/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021

initiated pursuant thereto are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(GITA GOPI, J.) Pankaj