Gujarat High Court
Minaxiben Dilipbhai Vajeriya vs Binduben D/O Jayendrabhai Mehta on 17 June, 2021
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/CR.MA/18023/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18023 of 2019
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5918 of 2021
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5681 of 2021
==========================================================
MINAXIBEN DILIPBHAI VAJERIYA
Versus
BINDUBEN D/O JAYENDRABHAI MEHTA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent-State.
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK(3) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N)(9) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 17/06/2021
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Criminal Misc. Application No. 18023 of 2019 and
Criminal Misc. Application No. 5918 of 2021 have been
filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for quashing and setting aside the first information report
bearing C.R. No. I - 138 of 2019 registered at Narol
Police Station under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468,
471, 120B, 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Criminal Misc. Application No. 5681 of 2021 has
been filed for quashing and setting aside the first
information report bearing C.R.No. I - 59 of 2016
registered at Gujarat University Police Station,
Ahmedabad under Sections 406, 420, 114 of the Indian
Penal Code and Criminal Case No. 34294 of 2017 pending
before Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.13, Ahmedabad.
R/CR.MA/18023/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
2. The amendment application has been moved to join
the co-accused No.6 who is a Notary as respondent No.3.
The proposed amendment is granted and the co-accused
No.6 has been added as respondent No.6 in this matter.
3. Mr. Nitin Amin, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the applicant has submitted that the original de-
facto complainant expired, and thereafter, by way of
amendment, by court's order the husband and the
daughters of the complainant Binduben Shah have been
joined as party respondents. Mr. Amin, learned advocate
submitted that the mother of the petitioner and the de-
facto complainant, namely Lilavatiben Jayendrabhai
Mehta had purchased the property bearing Survey No.
411, Block No.76 and Block No.77 of 135 sq.yard; on both
these lands the construction was made upto plinth level.
The property was purchased by a registered sale deed
dated 03.11.1982 from her own funds. The block No. 78
of Survey No.411 ad-measuring 200 sq. yards was
purchased from the same person by Varshaben who is a
wife of petitioner's brother by registered sale deed on
03.10.1982. All the above stated three properties were in
the nature of go-down constructed upto plinth level when
it was purchased. It is stated that the mother of the
petitioners, Lilavatiben had executed a will on 25.07.1986
in favour of her grandson minor Vikram. Lilavatiben died
on 13.12.1986 and thereafter mutation entry of heirship
was made in revenue record on 25.11.2005.
3.1 Mr. Nitin Amin, learned advocate stated that all the
R/CR.MA/18023/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
sisters in view of the will executed by deceased
Lilavatiben had waived their rights in the property
described in the will in favour of Vikram Vijay Mehta, the
grandson of deceased Lilavatiben. He has stated that the
complainant, one of the sister, Binduben Prashantbhai
Shah after more than 13 years because of some internal
family differences had filed an FIR on 29.07.2019.
3.2 Mr. Nitin Amin, learned advocate submits that the
FIR is a counter-blast of a complaint prayed to be
quashed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5681 of 2021
registered as C.R. No. I - 59 of 2016 with Gujarat
University Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code. Mr. Amin, learned advocate submits that it was a
family dispute; the differences have been resolved inter-
se and all the members of the family have arrived at a
mutual understanding and have decided to resolve all the
grievances, and accordingly, by intervention of the family
members, they all have given consent for quashing of
both the FIRs.
3.3 Mr. Nitin Amin, learned advocate also refers to the
notarised affidavit filed by the respondents No.1.1, 1.2
and 1.3 to state that the affirmation has been given by the
heirs of the deceased complainant in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 18023 of 2019 and Criminal Misc.
Application No. 5918 of 2021.
4. Ms. Mousmi Nanavati, learned advocate appearing
for Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for
R/CR.MA/18023/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
the respondent has contended that the parties are the
members of the family and the respondents have been
identified by learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati. The
respondents No.1.1 to 1.3 have appeared before this
Court through video conferencing and have affirmed the
affidavit produced on record and stated that the family
dispute has been resolved and they have with the
intervention of the family members and mutual
understanding arrived at settlement. All the parties are
related to learned advocate Mr.Hemant Shah and thus
have remained present before this Court through video
conferencing, from advocate Mr. Hemant Shah office.
4.1 In Criminal Misc. Application No. 5681 of 2021, the
affidavit filed by Meenaxiben is on record; who has been
identified by learned advocate Mr.Hemant Shah.
Meenaxiben is also present before this Court through
video conferencing. She also states that she has no
grievance against the applicant, and because of the
intervention of the family members, mutual
understanding and agreement has been arrived at
between the parties.
5. Owing to dispute concerning the property of
Lilavatiben; the first FIR was lodged on 11.11.2016 being
C.R. No. I - 59 of 2016 by Meenaxiben against
Prashantbhai Shah and thereafter wife of Prashantbhai
Shah, gave a complaint which was registered as C.R. No.
I - 138 of 2019 on 29.07.2019. The deceased Lilavatiben
by way of will has bequeathed the property in favour of
her grandson minor Vikram. The daughters of Lilavatiben
R/CR.MA/18023/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
have developed some grudges with the passage of time
and thus it appears that the family differences arose
which resulted into lodging of the FIR. Since the dispute
between the parties is for the family property disposed of
in favour of Vikram Mehta and now all the daughters of
deceased Lilavatiben have no grievance and the matters
have been settled; the settlement is required to be
accepted.
6. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP has referred to the
report of the police received from Narol Police Station,
Ahmedabad, and submits that the police has recorded the
statement of the witnesses and has found that by the
representatives of their community; compromise has been
arrived at between the parties without any force or
coercion and thus the compromise arrived at between the
parties is in their own volition and willingness. Still,
however, learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt submits that any
first information report should be quashed in accordance
with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the parameters
laid down therein.
7. 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
R/CR.MA/18023/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
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 predominantly civil
flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or
R/CR.MA/18023/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
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."
8. 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 offences punishable
under sections 307 and 34 IPC could be quashed on the
basis of the settlement between the parties. While
R/CR.MA/18023/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
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,
R/CR.MA/18023/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
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 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
R/CR.MA/18023/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
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."
9. The dispute has been resolved by the intervention
of the members of the community; the elders of the
family have settled the issue and no personal grudge
remains between the family members. The settlement of
the dispute does not effect the interest of the State
Government and there is no allegation of any physical
injury, and when both the parties have given consent to
quash the FIR, when the dispute is private and personal
affair, thus, 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.
10. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The first
information report bearing C.R. No. I - 138 of 2019
registered at Narol Police Station and C.R.No. I - 59
of 2016 registered at Gujarat University Police
R/CR.MA/18023/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
Station, Ahmedabad, with chargesheet thereof and all
other consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance
thereof are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute
to the aforesaid extent.
(GITA GOPI,J)
A.M.A. SAIYED
