Gujarat High Court

Anil Manohar Munshi vs State Of Gujarat on 6 February, 2023

Bench: Gita Gopi

     R/CR.MA/12392/2018                                       ORDER DATED: 06/02/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12392 of 2018

==========================================================
                          ANIL MANOHAR MUNSHI & 1 other(s)
                                     Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.NISARG P RAVAL(7262) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR. NILAY A THAKER(7275) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                  Date : 06/02/2023

                                   ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP and Mr. Nilay A.Thaker,

learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on

behalf of the respective respondents. By consent, Rule is

fixed forthwith.

2. This application has been filed under section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and

setting aside the FIR being C.R. No.I-53 of 2000

registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Dist.:

Ahmedabad for offfences punishable under sections 406,

420, 465, 467, 471 and 120B of IPC, Criminal Case

No.1682 of 2000, and other proceedings initiated in

R/CR.MA/12392/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2023

pursuance thereof.

3. Mr. Nisarg P.Raval, learned advocate for the

applicants submits that quashing petition was filed on the

ground of settlement between the parties. Mr. Raval

states that it is an issue with regard to property of

commercial complex and the complainant has settled the

dispute with the applicant, and that there remains no

grievance between them. Therefore, in the larger interest

of the society, the impugned complaint may be quashed

and set aside.

4. Learned APP has produced report of the police

inspector, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City

verifying the factum of settlement whose statement was

recorded on 04.02.2023, who has also provided a copy of

the affidavit to the police.

5. Mr. Nilay A.Thaker, learned advocate for

respondent no.2 - original complainant, concurred with

the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by

R/CR.MA/12392/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2023

learned advocate Mr. Nisarg P.Raval appearing for the

applicants. Mr. Thaker stated that earlier on 03.07.2018,

the complainant has filed his affidavit on the factum of

settlement, which has been amicable arrived at between

the parties.

6. The complainant could not remain present

before this Court. The Court instructed Advocate Mr.

Nilay A.Thaker to contact the complainant through his

mobile device, and accordingly the complainant was on

video conferencing before this Court and affirmed the

settlement by the applicants with almost all victims and

thus asserted for quashing of the FIR.

6.1 Further, Additional Affidavit of the applicant is

on record, where he has stated that he has settled the

disputes with witness no.2 - Rameshbhai Goordhandas

Bagadiya, witness no.4 - Yogesh Bhupendrabhai Patel,

witness no.5 - Rajubhai Jagannathabhai Parekh, witness

no.6 - Rajendrabhai Natvarlala Shah and witness no.7 -

Kirit Narsinhbhai Patel; and he stated that witness no.3 -

R/CR.MA/12392/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2023

Pravinkumar Mohanlala Bagadiya, witness no.8 - Anil

Gunvantlala Vora and witness no.15 - Satishbhai Hiralal

Patel passed away and witness no9 - Kiritbhai Jayantilal

Shah is accountant of the applicant; and the entire

dispute has been settled with the parties and it is purely a

business transaction.

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

R/CR.MA/12392/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2023

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

R/CR.MA/12392/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2023

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

R/CR.MA/12392/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2023

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 case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal

and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the Apex

Court formulated as many as seven categories of cases,

wherein the extraordinary power under Section 482 could

be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of

process of the court. The Apex Court in the said case

made the following observations:-

"8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide in myriad kinds of cases

R/CR.MA/12392/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2023

wherein such power should be exercised:

(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

R/CR.MA/12392/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2023

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and / or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

                (g)        where a criminal proceeding is
                manifestly              attended           with     mala      fide
                and/or               where        the       proceeding            is

maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

9. In the present case, the impugned complaint

was filed on 11.01.2099 and the Affidavit of the original

complainant - respondent no.2 herein, regarding

settlement of the dispute has been executed on

R/CR.MA/12392/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2023

03.07.2018. 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