Jayshreeben Bhavinbhai Dave vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 1399 Guj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1399 Guj
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2023

Gujarat High Court

Jayshreeben Bhavinbhai Dave vs State Of Gujarat on 9 February, 2023

Bench: Gita Gopi

     R/CR.MA/10329/2016                                       ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10329 of 2016
                                 With
             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 25043 of 2016
==========================================================
                          JAYSHREEBEN BHAVINBHAI DAVE
                                     Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS HIRAL U MEHTA for MR.VISHAL J DAVE(6515) for the Applicant(s)
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARNISH V DARJI(3705) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
                  Date : 09/02/2023
               COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Draft amendment is allowed in Criminal Misc.

Application no.25043 of 2016.

2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor

waives service of Rule on behalf of the

respondent-State and learned advocates Mr.

Darji and Ms. Mehta waive service of Rule on

behalf of the respective original

complainants.

3. These applications have been filed under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as

"Cr.P.C.") for quashing and setting aside

R/CR.MA/10329/2016 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

the FIR bearing CR No. I-59/2016 registered

with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for

offences punishable under Sections 467, 468,

471, 181, 120B of the IPC and FIR bearing CR

No.I-11/2016 registered with Sanand Police

Station, Ahmedabad for the offence

punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468,

471, 120B of the IPC.

4. Learned advocate for the applicants submits

that counter FIRs have been filed in

relation to the family property, where the

complainants are uncle and niece

respectively and further states that the

parties have settled the dispute amicably

outside the Court and that there remains no

grievance between them. Therefore, in the

larger interest of the society, the impugned

FIR may be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State submitted that any FIR

R/CR.MA/10329/2016 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

should be quashed in accordance with the

guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the

parameters laid down therein.

6. The complainants are present before this

Court and the complainant - Hiteshbhai is

represented by learned advocate Mr. Darji

and the complainant - Jayshreeben is

represented by learned advocate Ms. Mehta.

The complainants have also filed an

affidavit stating that now there is no

grievance between them and continuation of

FIR would rather affect the society. The

Court verified the contents of the

compromise with the original complainants

who are present before the Court. The

original complainants have affirmed the

affidavit, wherein terms of settlement have

been recorded. The original complainants

categorically stated that the complainants

have no grievance against the applicants and

R/CR.MA/10329/2016 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

that the complainants have no objection to

the quashment of the impugned FIR.

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 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

R/CR.MA/10329/2016 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

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

R/CR.MA/10329/2016 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

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 view of the discussions made hereinabove

and in view of the settlement arrived at

between the parties, there exists no scope

R/CR.MA/10329/2016 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

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