Gujarat High Court
Vimalaben Prempuri Goswami vs State Of Gujarat on 22 October, 2021
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/SCR.A/8565/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8565 of 2019
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8565 of 2019
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO.
2 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8565 of 2019
==========================================================
VIMALABEN PREMPURI GOSWAMI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR S M VATSA(6000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. K.S. GANDHI, ADVOCATE for Respondent No.2 NOTICE SERVED BY
DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. PRANAV TRIVEDI, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 22/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION)
NO.1 OF 2021 IN SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.8565
OF 2019
1. The office objection is dispensed with.
2. Mr. K.S. Gandhi, learned advocate submitted that he has
instruction to appear on behalf of respondent No.2. He is
permitted to file his Vakalatnama. If so, the registry to accept the
same.
3. Rule. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate, waive service of
notice of rule on behalf of respondents Nos.1 & 2 respectively.
4. This application has been filed under section 482 of the
R/SCR.A/8565/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/10/2021
Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the
complaint being FIR No. I-95/2017 dated 23.6.2017 registered
with Tharad Police Station, Dist.: Banaskantha for offfences
punishable under sections 379 and 114 of IPC and the
proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.
5. Mr. S.M. Vatsa, learned advocate states that initially
Special Criminal Application No. 8565 of 2019 was filed for one
of the accused, but as there was compromise between the
parties, the present application being Criminal Misc.
Application (Direction) No.1 of 2021 has been moved with a
prayer by all the accused for quashing of the complaint being
FIR No. I-95/2017 dated 23.6.2017 registered with Tharad
Police Station, Dist.: Banaskantha for offfences punishable
under sections 379 and 114 of IPC and the proceedings
initiated pursuant thereto. Mr. S.M.Vatsa, learned advocate for
the applicants, submitted that the accused- applicants and the
original first informant i.e. respondent No.2- complainant have
resolved their differences and misunderstanding upon the
timely intervention of society elders and have agreed to
amicably settle their disputes inter-se and now have no
grievance with each other. As the complainant does not want
to proceed with the prosecution and therefore has no objection
to the quashment of the impugned FIR filed by him.
5.1 Learned advocate submitted that the Court may verify
the said aspect from the original complainant, respondent
no.2.
6. Mr. K.S. Gandhi, learned advocate for respondent no.2,
original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement
of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate Mr. S.M.Vatsa
R/SCR.A/8565/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/10/2021
appearing for the applicants.
7. The complainant- respondent No.2 Prempuri Mahadevpuri
Goswami is before this Court. The complainant- respondent
No.2 is identified by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi. The Court
verified the contents of the compromise with the original
complainant - Prempuri Mahadevpuri Goswami. The
respondent no.2, original complainant, affirmed about the
execution of the Affidavit dated 6.9.2021 wherein the facts of
settlement have been recorded. The respondent no.2, original
complainant, categorically stated that he has no grievance
against the applicants and that he has no objection to the
quashment of the impugned first information report filed by
him.
8. 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.
9. This Court has heard the learned advocates on both the
sides and has perused the material on record. In the Affidavit
dated 6.9.2021 filed by respondent no.2, original complainant,
it has been categorically averred that the dispute with the
applicants has been amicably resolved with the intervention of
the elders, close relatives and well-wishers and states that he
has not objection if the FIR along with the consequential
proceedings of the said FIR against the applicants are quashed
by this Court.
10. It is true that the offences alleged against the applicants
under the Indian Penal Code are non-compoundable and that
R/SCR.A/8565/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/10/2021
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 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
R/SCR.A/8565/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/10/2021
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."
11. 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;
R/SCR.A/8565/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/10/2021
(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
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-
R/SCR.A/8565/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/10/2021
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."
12. In the present case, the impugned complaint was filed on
23.6.2017 and the Affidavit of the original complainant,
respondent no.2 herein, regarding settlement of the dispute
has been executed on 6.9.2021. 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.
13. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned
complaint being FIR No. I-95/2017 dated 23.6.2017 registered
with Tharad Police Station, Dist.: Banaskantha and the
proceedings initiated pursuant thereto against the applicants
are quashed and set-aside . Rule is made absolute.
ORDER IN SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.8565 OF 2019
In view of the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application
R/SCR.A/8565/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/10/2021
(Direction) No. 1 of 2021, the present petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF
EARLY HEARING) NO.2 OF 2021 IN SPECIAL CRIMINAL
APPLICATION NO.8565 OF 2019
In view of the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application
(Direction) No. 1 of 2021, the present application stands disposed
of accordingly.
(GITA GOPI,J)
SAJ GEORGE
