Gujarat High Court
Maheshkumar Kantilal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 10 January, 2023
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/CR.MA/19942/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 19942 of 2018
==========================================================
MAHESHKUMAR KANTILAL PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAV C SANGHAVI(5950) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR HARDIK A DAVE(3764) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 10/01/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned Additional
Public Prosecutors waives service of Rule on
behalf of the respondent-State and Mr.
Hardik Dave, learned advocate waives service
of Rule on behalf of the original
complainant - respondent no.2.
2. This application 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
R/CR.MA/19942/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2023
the FIR bearing CR No.I-74/2018 registered
with Adajan Police Station, Surat City for
offences punishable under Sections 498A,
323, 504, 114 of the IPC.
3. It is stated that both the parties had
amicably settled the dispute and they are
living separately since 1.4.2017 and both
the parties have filed a divorce petition
with mutual consent and had agreed on
resolution of the dispute to withdraw all
the Criminal Cases. The complainant-Pinkle
Patel has filed an affidavit which was
notarized on 15.2.2022. This Court, thus,
instructed learned advocate Mr. Dave who is
representing the complainant to join her
through Video Conferencing through the
device. Accordingly, this Court conversed
with the complainant by way of video
conferencing and she has affirmed the
execution of the affidavit and has stated
R/CR.MA/19942/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2023
that dispute has been resolved and she now
proposes to withdraw the complaint and thus,
requested to quash the FIR.
4. Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor 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.
5. The complainant has also filed an affidavit
stating that now there is no grievance
between them and continuation of FIR would
rather affect both the parties. The Court
verified the contents of the compromise with
the original complainant - respondent no.2.
The original complainant affirmed the
affidavit, wherein terms of settlement have
been recorded. The original complainant
categorically stated that the complainant
has no grievance against the applicants and
R/CR.MA/19942/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2023
that she has no objection to the quashment
of the impugned FIR filed by her.
6. 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
R/CR.MA/19942/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2023
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
R/CR.MA/19942/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2023
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."
7. In view of the discussions made hereinabove
and in view of the settlement arrived at
R/CR.MA/19942/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2023
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.
8. In the result, the application is allowed.
The FIR bearing CR No.I-74/2018 registered
with Adajan Police Station, Surat City and
the proceedings initiated in pursuance
thereof are quashed and set aside qua the
present applicants. Rule is made absolute to
the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik
