Gujarat High Court

Arunkumar Popatlal Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat on 25 January, 2023

Bench: Gita Gopi

     R/CR.MA/27066/2017                                       ORDER DATED: 25/01/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 27066 of 2017
                                With
            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 113 of 2020
                                With
            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 995 of 2020
==========================================================
                          ARUNKUMAR POPATLAL THAKKAR
                                     Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR THAKKAR with MR PRASHANTKUMAR R SHARMA(8591) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR K S CHANDRANI(6674) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                 Date : 25/01/2023

                              COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutors

waives service of Rule on behalf of the

respondent-State and Mr. Chandrani, learned

advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of

the original complainant.

2. These applications have 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/27066/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2023

the FIR bearing CR No. I-102/2017 registered

with Kuvadva Road Police Station, Rajkot

city for offences punishable under Sections

409, 420 and 114 of the IPC as well as all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate with Mr.

Sharma, learned advocate for the applicants

submit that the whole complaint is actually

reflecting the civil transactions where

necessary documents were executed for sale

of property and as specific condition was

laid down that in case permission would not

be received in time, Jalaram Builders would

return back the money along with the

interest. Mr. Thakkar submits that about

about 97 such persons had made their

dealings and out of 97, 60 sale deeds have

been executed. Rest of them were given

notice by RPAD and Mr. Thakkar submits that

the delay was caused just because the N.A.

R/CR.MA/27066/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2023

permission could not be received in time.

Now about 7 including the complainant have

settled the dispute by way of settlement

executed before the notary, where the amount

as per the terms was agreed upon to be

returned back to the complainant and the

witnesses have agreed upon to give their

consent for withdrawal of the complaints.

Mr. Thakkar submits that the fact could be

verified from the complainant and the

witnesses.

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. Mr. Chandrani, learned advocate appears for

the original complainant who has filed

affidavits and it is stated that the matters

have been amicably settled. They have

R/CR.MA/27066/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2023

received money and the last installment

would be paid on 31.1.2023. The original

complainant and the witnesses/victims have

filed the affidavits and stated that the

issue has been amicably resolved. The Court

verified the contents of the affidavits with

the original complainant and other

witnesses/victims who are present before the

Court. Mr. Narendra Vyas could not remain

present because of marriage ceremony of his

son, while other witnesses/victims,

Devrajbhai Thobhanbhai Patel, Ravin

Bhalchandra Shashikant Parmar, Ashokbhai

Jaganprasad Gupta, Neha Kapil Gupta and

Narayan M. Luja have affirmed the affidavit

before the notary in common document

executed in presence of other

witnesses/victims. The original complainant

and the witnesses have categorically stated

that they have no grievance against the

R/CR.MA/27066/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2023

applicants and that the complainant and the

witnesses have no objection to the quashment

of the impugned FIR.

6. Issue is totally civil in nature and the

parties have resolved the dispute by way of

settlement agreement executed before the

notary on 12.9.2022 and to that effect,

affidavit has been produced on record and

the complainant and the victims have

affirmed execution before the notary and

have also affirmed the fact that the dispute

has been settled and they have received the

money in terms of settlement.

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:-

R/CR.MA/27066/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2023

"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 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

R/CR.MA/27066/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2023

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 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

R/CR.MA/27066/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2023

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 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

R/CR.MA/27066/2017 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2023