Gujarat High Court

Jaydipbhai @ Jaydevbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 11 January, 2023

Bench: Gita Gopi

     R/CR.MA/20056/2020                          ORDER DATED: 11/01/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20056 of 2020

==========================================================
      JAYDIPBHAI @ JAYDEVBHAI BHARATBHAI RABARI @ JOTANA
                             Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. R.D.KINARIWALA(6146) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
HARD S SONI(9357) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                            Date : 11/01/2023

                             ORAL ORDER

1. 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-11198047201071 of

2020 registered before the Sihor Police Station, Dist.:

Bhavnagar for offfences punishable under sections 504,

506(2) and 114 of IPC.

2. Mr. R.D. Kinariwala, learned advocate for the

applicants stated that the parties have settled the dispute

amicably outside the Court and that there remains no

grievance between them. Therefore, in the larger interest

R/CR.MA/20056/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2023

of the society, the impugned complaint may be quashed

and set aside.

2.1 Learned advocate submitted that the Court may

verify the said aspect from the original complainant -

respondent no.2.

3. Advocate Mr. Tejas D.Shukla for Mr. Hard

S.Soni, learned advocate for respondent no.2 - original

complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of

the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate Mr. R.D.

Kinariwala appearing for the applicants.

4. The Court verified the contents of compromise

with the original complainant - respondent no.2, who is

present before the Court and identified by Advocate Mr.

Tejas D.Shukla. The respondent no.2 - original

complainant, affirmed about execution of the notarized

Affidavit dated 19.12.2020, wherein terms of settlement

have been recorded. The respondent no.2 - original

complainant, categorically stated that the issue was

R/CR.MA/20056/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2023

regarding the amount of Rs.20,000/- borrowed by him. He

states that the same has already been repaid. He states

that he has no grievance against the applicants and that

he has no objection to the quashment of the impugned

first information report filed by him.

5. Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submitted that any First Information Report

should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of

the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein.

6. This Court has heard the learned advocates on

both the sides and has perused the material on record. In

the notarized Affidavit dated 19.12.2020 filed by

respondent no.2 - original complainant, it has been

categorically averred that the dispute with the applicants

has been amicably resolved. It is also averred that there

is no ill-will between the parties and that the original

complainant had not sustained any serious injury in the

alleged incident.

R/CR.MA/20056/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2023

7. 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 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

R/CR.MA/20056/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2023

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 cases, the High Court

R/CR.MA/20056/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2023

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 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,

R/CR.MA/20056/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2023

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 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

R/CR.MA/20056/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2023

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;

(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

R/CR.MA/20056/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2023

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 08.12.2020 and the Affidavit of the original

complainant - respondent no.2 herein, regarding

settlement of the dispute has been executed on

19.12.2020. 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.

R/CR.MA/20056/2020 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2023

The continuance of proceedings would lead to wastage of

precious judicial time as there would remain no