Gordhanbhai Ramjibhai Rachh vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 14331 Guj

     R/CR.MA/5584/2020                                        ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5584 of 2020

==========================================================
                         GORDHANBHAI RAMJIBHAI RACHH
                                    Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.MRUDUL M BAROT(3750) for the Applicant(s) No. 2,3,4
MR.NILESH S JOSHI(3752) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN POPAT for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MONALI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                Date : 17/09/2021

                                    ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Chintan Popat, learned advocate, waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 respectively. Mr. Chintan Popat, learned advocate is permitted to file vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2-original complainant.

2. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR being CR. No.I- 158 of 2004 against the applicants registered with Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot City, for offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Mr. Mrudul Barot, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the dispute between the complainant and the

R/CR.MA/5584/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

petitioners have been amicably settled and, therefore, the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside. The complainant alongwith the petitioner are present before this Court and they have been identified by Mr. Chitan Popat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2- original complainant. The complainant has filed the affidavit dated 13.01.2020 in this regard. The respondent no.2, original complainant, 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.

4. Mr. Chintan Popat, learned advocate for respondent no.2, original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate Mr. Barot appearing for the petitioners.

5. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP 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. This Court has heard the learned advocates on both the sides and has perused the material on record. The respondent no.2 - original complainant affirmed that dispute with the petitioners has been amicably resolved.

7. In the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another V. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others, reported in 2018 (10) SCC 443, the Apex Court made an elaborate discussion on the scope and powers of the High

R/CR.MA/5584/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in matrimonial matters. The observations made in paragraphs- 15, 39 and 40 are relevant. It read thus:-

"15. On the aforesaid bedrock, a prayer in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73 of 2015 has been made to have a uniform policy of registration of FIR, arrest and bail in cases of Section 498-A IPC. It is worthy to note here that during the pendency of this Writ Petition, the judgment had been pronounced in Rajesh Sharma (supra). The Court in Rajesh Sharma (supra) issued the following guidelines:-

"19.(i) (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising of three members. The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority.

(b) The Committees may be constituted out of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/ wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing.

(c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses.

(d) Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by such committee. Such committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication.

(e) Report of such committee be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is referred to it latest within one month from the date of receipt of complaint.

(f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter.

R/CR.MA/5584/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

(g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected.

(h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit.

(i) Members of the committee may be given such basic minimum training as may be considered necessary by the Legal Services Authority from time to time.

(j) The Members of the committee may be given such honorarium as may be considered viable.

(k) It will be open to the District and Sessions Judge to utilize the cost fund wherever considered necessary and proper.

ii) Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area. Such designations may be made within one month from today. Such designated officer may be required to undergo training for such duration (not less than one week) as may be considered appropriate. The training may be completed within four months from today;

iii) In cases where a settlement is reached, it will be open to the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior Judicial Officer nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case if dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord;

iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day ‟ss notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the

R/CR.MA/5584/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed;

v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine;

vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted; and

vii) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial.

viii) These directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death."

39. In view of the aforesaid premises, the direction contained in paragraph 19(i) as a whole is not in accord with the statutory framework and the direction issued in paragraph 19(ii) shall be read in conjunction with the direction given hereinabove.

40. Direction No. 19(iii) is modified to the extent that if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court, keeping in view the law laid down in Gian Singh (supra), shall dispose of the same."

8. It is true that the offences alleged against the petitioners under the Indian Penal Code are non-compoundable and that

R/CR.MA/5584/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

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

R/CR.MA/5584/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

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."

9. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and 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

R/CR.MA/5584/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

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 petition is allowed. The first information report bearing CR. No.I- 158 of 2004 against the petitioners registered with Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot City, and the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(GITA GOPI,J) A.M.A. SAIYED