Gujarat High Court

Rinkubhai Bhogilal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 9 January, 2023

Bench: Gita Gopi

     R/CR.MA/6867/2020                                     ORDER DATED: 09/01/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6867 of 2020
                                With
             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 14805 of 2020
==========================================================
                           RINKUBHAI BHOGILAL PATEL
                                     Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JAYSHREE ACHARYA(5160) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. BHAVNA D ACHARYA(6406) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent-State in CRMA 6867/20
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent-State in CRMA 14805/20
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                  Date : 09/01/2023

                             COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Mr. Dhawan Jayswal and Mr. Hardik

Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutors

waive service of Rule on behalf of the

respondent-State and the learned advocates

appearing for the original complainants

waive service of Rule on behalf of the

respective original complainants. Both the

matters have been filed for quashing the

FIRs on merits.

R/CR.MA/6867/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2023

2. Criminal Misc. Application no.6867 of 2020

has been filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter

referred to as "Cr.P.C.") for quashing and

setting aside the FIR No.11197046200209/2020

registered with Shinor Police Station

Vadodara Rural for offences punishable under

Sections 323, 506(2) of IPC and Sections

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities Act), 1989.

3. Criminal Misc. Application no.14805 of 2020

has been filed under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the

FIR No.11197046200509/2020 registered with

Shinor Police Station Vadodara Rural for

offences punishable under Sections 465, 467,

468, 471, 203, 193, 182, 114 of the IPC.

R/CR.MA/6867/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2023

4. It has been stated by the learned advocates

for the applicants that both the FIRs have

arisen out of the same incident and both the

complainants are facing the prosecution and

because of the intervention of community

people, friends and family members,

compromise has been arrived at and both the

advocates submit that the settlement of the

issues would bring peace and harmony in the

locality and even between the family

members. Therefore, in the larger interest

of the society, the impugned FIRs may be

quashed and set aside.

5. Both the complainants - Rinkubhai Bhogilal

Patel and Vijaybhai Manibhai @ Manilal

Vasava are present before this Court and

both have affirmed the affidavits filed and

state that now there is no grievance between

any of them and continuation of FIR would

rather affect the society and thus, both of

R/CR.MA/6867/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2023

them have urged to quash the FIRs.

6. Mr. Dhawan Jayswal and Mr. Hardik Mehta,

learned Additional Public Prosecutors for

the respondent-State submitted that any FIR

should be quashed in accordance with the

guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the

parameters laid down therein. Learned APPs

have urged that the settlement under the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 should

not be accepted since it is a special

provision and the trial should proceed.

7. Learned advocates for the original

complainants have concurred with the factum

of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by

learned advocates appearing for the

applicants. The Court verified the contents

of the compromise with the original

complainants who are present before the

Court. The original complainants affirmed the

R/CR.MA/6867/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2023

affidavits, wherein terms of settlement have

been recorded. The original complainants

categorically stated that they have no

grievance against the applicants and that

they have no objection to the quashment of

the impugned FIRs filed by them.

8. 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

R/CR.MA/6867/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2023

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

R/CR.MA/6867/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2023

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,

R/CR.MA/6867/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2023

the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

9. In Swaran Singh and others V. State, Through

Standing Counsel and Others, (2008) 8 SCC

435, the Apex Court has drawn distinction

between the expression "public place" and "in

any place within public view". It was held

that if an offence is committed outside the

building, e.g. in a lawn outside a house and

the lawn can be seen by someone from the road

or lane outside the boundary wall, then the

lawn would certainly be a place within the

public view. On the contrary, if the remark

is made inside a building but some members of

the public are there (not merely relatives or

friends), then it would not be an offence

since it is not in the public view.

10. In the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union

of India and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC

R/CR.MA/6867/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2023

727, the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Per: Hon'ble

Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt) referred to the

judgment rendered in the case of Raghunathrao

Ganpatrao vs. Union of India, reported in

1993 (1) SCR 480, wherein it has been held as

under:-

"In our considered opinion this argument is misconceived and has no relevance to the facts of the present case. One of the objectives of the Preamble of our Constitution is 'fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.' It will be relevant to cite the explanation given by Dr. Ambedkar for the word 'fraternity' explaining that 'fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians.' In a country like ours with so many disruptive forces of regionalism, communalism and linguism, it is necessary to emphasis and re-emphasis that the unity and integrity of India can be preserved only by a spirit of brotherhood. India has one common citizenship and every citizen should feel that he is Indian first irrespective of other basis.

In this view, any measure at bringing about equality should be

R/CR.MA/6867/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2023

welcome."

11. In a similar way, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Nandini Sundar Vs.

State of Ghhatisgarh, reported in (2011)

7 SCC 457, held that:-

"The Constitution itself, in no uncertain terms, demands that the State shall strive, incessantly and consistently, to promote fraternity amongst all citizens such that dignity of every citizen is protected, nourished and promoted."

12. In the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan

(supra) while dealing with the

constitutional validity of Section 18A of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it

was held as under:-

"12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameter, as already observed while deciding

R/CR.MA/6867/2020 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2023

the review petitions. The legal position is clear and no argument to the contrary has been raised."

13. 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 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.