Gujarat High Court

Karanraj @Kishan Hajabhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 27 February, 2023

Bench: Samir J. Dave

     R/CR.MA/4089/2023                                     ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4089 of 2023
==========================================================
                   KARANRAJ @KISHAN HAJABHAI PARMAR
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDIP M PATEL(5649) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS AVANIKA M. PANCHAL for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE

                                   Date : 27/02/2023

                                    ORAL ORDER

RULE. Learned APP and learned advocate

Ms.Avanika Panchal waive service of notice of rule

on behalf of respondent No.1 & 2 respectively.

Learned advocate Ms.Avanika Panchal is permitted to

file her Vakalatnama with the Registry. With the

consent of both the sides, the matter is heard

finally.

1. By way of this petition filed under section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the

petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside, on

the basis of settlement, the impugned complaint

R/CR.MA/4089/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023

being C.R. No.I- 11203039230011 of 2023 registered

with Medarda Police Station for offences punishable

under Sections 386, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and

under sections 40, 42 and 43 of the Gujarat Money

Lenders Act, 20111 and all consequential

proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted

that the parties have settled the dispute amicably

outside the Court and there remains no ill-will or

dispute between them. It was, therefore, prayed

that the impugned complaint may be quashed on the

basis of settlement between the parties.

3. The respondent-original complainant appeared

before the Court and has been identified by learned

advocate Ms.Avanika Panchal. The respondent-

complainant has affirmed about the factum of

settlement of dispute with the petitioner and has

also consented to the quashment of the impugned

complaint filed against the petitioner. He has

filed an Affidavit to that effect, which is taken

R/CR.MA/4089/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023

on record.

4. Learned APP submitted that any First

Information Report should be quashed in accordance

with the guidelines framed by the Apex Court and

the parameters laid down therein.

5. This Court heard learned advocates on both the

sides and perused the material on record. The

offence alleged against the petitioner is non-

compoundable but, it could be compounded with the

permission of the Court. In Gian Singh v. State of

Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303,

the Apex Court has set out the criteria wherein the

inherent jurisdiction of the High Court could be

exercised for quashing a First Information Report

on the basis of settlement. 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

R/CR.MA/4089/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023

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

R/CR.MA/4089/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023

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."

6. 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 a First Information Report

lodged for the offences punishable under sections

307 and 34 IPC could be quashed on the basis of

settlement between the parties. Para-13 reads thus:

R/CR.MA/4089/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023

"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, 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

R/CR.MA/4089/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023

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 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."

7. In the present case, the parties have settled

the dispute outside the Court. Therefore, there

R/CR.MA/4089/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2023

exists no scope for further proceedings in the

matter and 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.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The

impugned complaint being C.R. No.I- 11203039230011