Gujarat High Court

Dhruvesh Sureshbhai Dhanani vs State Of Gujarat on 18 January, 2023

Bench: Gita Gopi

     R/CR.MA/16496/2013                                        ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 16496 of 2013

==========================================================
                DHRUVESH SURESHBHAI DHANANI & 3 other(s)
                               Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ND BUCH for MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                 Date : 18/01/2023

                                    ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutors

waives service of Rule on behalf of the

respondent-State and Mr. Buch, 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

the FIR bearing CR No. I-222/2013 registered

R/CR.MA/16496/2013 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023

with Kapodara Police Station, Surat for

offences punishable under Sections 498C,

323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC as well

as Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act.

3. Learned advocate for the applicants submits

that the parties have settled the dispute

amicably outside the Court and that there

remains no grievance between them.

Therefore, in the larger interest of the

society, the impugned FIR may be quashed and

set aside.

4. 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 original complainant is present before

this Court along with the affidavit. Earlier

R/CR.MA/16496/2013 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023

also, the complainant asked for adjournment

stating that she would be appearing with the

lawyer and affirmed the fact that the

proceedings between her and the applicants

has been settled. She states that she

proposes to engage learned advocate Mr. Buch

who is present before this Court. Let his

Vakalatnama be accepted on record. Mr. Buch

identifies the complainant. Mr. Buch states

that learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya has

filed a sick note and he has been given

consent to appear on behalf of the

complainant. The complainant has also filed

an affidavit stating that now there is no

grievance between them and continuation of

FIR would rather affect the society. The

Court verified the contents of the

compromise with the original complainant-

respondent no.2 who is present before the

Court. The original complainant affirmed the

R/CR.MA/16496/2013 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023

affidavit, wherein terms of settlement have

been recorded. The original complainant

categorically stated that the complainant

has no grievance against the applicants and

that the complainant has no objection to the

quashment of the impugned FIR.

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

R/CR.MA/16496/2013 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023

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/16496/2013 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023

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/16496/2013 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023

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

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