Gujarat High Court
Jivanbhai @ Jeenabhai Kashiram ... vs State Of Gujarat on 16 November, 2021
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/CR.MA/12529/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12529 of 2020
==========================================================
JIVANBHAI @ JEENABHAI KASHIRAM PANDYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR HARDIK J JANI(6497) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 16/11/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Draft amendment to amend the cause-title is allowed.
Accused No.1 is permitted to be arraigned as applicant No.4.
2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pranav
Trivedi waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent
No.1 State, whereas learned advocate Mr. Hardik Jani waives
service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.3 - original
complainant.
3. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR
being C. R. No. I - 16 of 2019 registered with Khadia Police
Station, Dist.: Ahmedabad City for offfence punishable under
section 498A, 323, 294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the
proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Tanmay Karia for the petitioners
has submitted that the parties have settled the dispute amicably
R/CR.MA/12529/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2021
outside the Court and that there remains no grievance between
them. It is therefore submitted that in the larger interest of justice,
the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Jani for the respondent
no.3 - original complainant has also confirmed that the dispute is
amicably settled between the parties outside the Court and has
filed an affidavit of settlement of respondent No.3.
6. The Court verified the contents of the compromise with
the original complainant - respondent no.3. She has stated that the
disputes have been settled and they have decided to part their
ways. The respondent no.3 - original complainant, has also affirmed
about the execution of the Affidavit dated 16.11.2021, wherein the
terms of settlement have been recorded. The respondent no.3 -
original complainant, has categorically stated that she has no
grievance against the petitioners and that she has no objection to
the quashment of the impugned first information report filed by
her.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Pranav Trivedi has
submitted that any First Information Report should be quashed in
accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the
parameters laid down therein.
8. This Court has heard the learned advocates of both the
sides and has perused the material on record. In the Affidavit dated
16.11.2021 filed by respondent no.3 - original complainant, it has
been categorically averred that the dispute with the petitioners has
been amicably resolved by way of settlement and that the present
compromise is arrived at without any coercion, force and undue
influence. Further, a demand draft is prepared towards
permanently alimony which, as per the terms, would be handed
over to respondent No.3.
R/CR.MA/12529/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2021
9. It is true that the offences alleged against the
petitioners 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 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
R/CR.MA/12529/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2021
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."
10. In the present case, the Affidavit of the original
complainant - respondent no.2 herein, regarding settlement of the
dispute has been executed. Admittedly, the dispute is a private and
personal affair. 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. 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.
R/CR.MA/12529/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2021
11. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR
being C. R. No. I - 16 of 2019 registered with Khadia Police
Station, Dist.: Ahmedabad City and the proceedings initiated in
pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside qua the present
petitioners. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(GITA GOPI,J)
cmk
