Mitul Navinchandra Mehta vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 4087 Guj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4087 Guj
Judgement Date : 6 June, 2023

Gujarat High Court

Mitul Navinchandra Mehta vs State Of Gujarat on 6 June, 2023

Bench: Gita Gopi

     R/CR.MA/10607/2017                                    ORDER DATED: 06/06/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10607 of 2017

==========================================================
                   MITUL NAVINCHANDRA MEHTA & 4 other(s)
                                 Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BP GUPTA(337) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR ARISH L SAIYED(5696) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR K I KAZI(5030) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                              Date : 06/06/2023

                                  ORAL ORDER

1. 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-85/2016 registered with Umara Police

Station, Surat for offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the

IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act as well as all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom.

R/CR.MA/10607/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/06/2023

2. Respondent no.2 - Ashkaben is present before

this Court. She states that in terms of

settlement, money has been deposited and Rs.18

lacs has been received by her. She submits

that the divorce decree was drawn on 21.4.2023

by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,

Surat. Marriage has been dissolved under

Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

and she submits that she has no objection now

if the FIR registered against the accused be

quashed.

3. The complainant states that she had filed an

affidavit on 24.3.2018 disputing the petition

but thereafter they had decided to settle the

dispute and accordingly, the divorce petition

under mutual consent was filed and since the

permanent alimony money has been received by

her and the marriage has been dissolved, she

states that she now has no objection if the

FIR gets quashed against the applicants.

R/CR.MA/10607/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/06/2023

4. The proceedings of the matter shows that both

the parties were present before this Court on

12.1.2023. The maternal uncle of the

petitioner had taken initiative to settle the

dispute between the parties. The consent

terms/purshis dated 12.1.2023 along with the

schedule of the property which the parties had

agreed, has been taken on record. The

complainant states that almost all the things

as per the schedule have been exchanged and

she now has no dispute. She further states

that she has received the money of Rs.18 lacs

from the Registry of this Court.

5. 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/10607/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/06/2023

"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 the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the

R/CR.MA/10607/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/06/2023

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 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

R/CR.MA/10607/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/06/2023

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."

6. 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.