Sartanbhai Bachubhai @ Batkubhai ... vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 2631 Guj

      R/CR.RA/285/2023                              ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 285 of 2023

                                 With
            R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 286 of 2023
==========================================================
               SARTANBHAI BACHUBHAI @ BATKUBHAI DANGI
                                Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.PRANAV TRIVEDI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                              Date : 29/03/2023

                            COMMON ORAL ORDER

[1] Mr.Mahesh Purohit, learned advocate states

that he has instructions to appear for and on behalf

of original complainant in both the matters. He is

permitted to file his Vakaltnama.

[2] Heard learned advocates for the parties.

[3] Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor

as well as learned advocate appearing for the

Complainants waive service of Rule on behalf of the

respective respondents.

R/CR.RA/285/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

[4] In Criminal Revision Application No.285 of

2023, the revisionist - applicant challenges the

judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.06.2017

passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Limkheda in Criminal Case No.1078 of

2005, wherein under Section 326 of the Indian Penal

Code, the applicant was sentenced to undergo three

years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of

Rs.10,000/-, and in default, simple imprisonment for

six months, reaffirmed by judgment and order dated

04.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2017 th by learned 4 Additional District & Sesssions Judge,

Limkheda.

[5] In Criminal Revision Application No.286 of

2023, the revisionist - applicants challenge the

judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.04.2018

passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Limkheda in Criminal Case No.840 of

2007, wherein under Section 323 read with Section

114 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicants were

sentenced to undergo six months of rigorous

R/CR.RA/285/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, and in default,

simple imprisonment for six days, and under Section

324 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code,

the applicants were sentenced to undergo one year

rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in

default, simple imprisonment for 15 days, and under

Section 325 read with section 114 of the Indian

Penal Code, the applicants were sentenced to undergo

three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of

Rs.5,000/-, and in default, simple imprisonment for

three months, reaffirmed by judgment and order

dated 04.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.08 of th 2018 by learned 4 Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Limkheda.

[6] Mr.Maulik Soni, learned advocate for the

applicants submitted that there was dispute between

the parties for the agricultural land and all are

relatives. The conviction and sentence were reaffirmed

in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2018 and Criminal

Appeal No.10 of 2017 which were declared on

04.11.2022.

R/CR.RA/285/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

[7] Advocate Mr.Purohit has placed Affidavit of

of the complainant. The complainants are present

before this Court and are identified by Mr.Purohit,

learned advocate. They have also reaffirmed the facts

mentioned in the Affidavit and stated that the

disputes were resolved due to intervention of trusted

person of the society.

[8] Advocate Mr.Purohit submits that dispute

which arose for some agricultural land, now, with the

intervention of the family members and the

representatives of the community, all have settled the

dispute to maintain peace in the community. All

accused are relatives to each other and in the

interest of village and society, they have decided to

settle the issues.

[9] Advocate Mr.Soni has relied upon the

judgment in the case of Parmar Rameshbhai

Pratapbhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2022 (0)

AIJEL-HC-244901 and submitted that Sections can be

R/CR.RA/285/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

compounded under Section 320 of the Criminal

Procedure Code as Section 325 of the Indian Penal

Code maintained in the Schedule could be permitted

to be compounded with the permission of the Court.

[10] Here, in this case, the complainants and

accused have amicably settled the dispute. The

decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs.

State of Punjab & Anr ., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303,

the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the relative

scope of Section 482 and section 320 of the Criminal

Procedure Code and had laid down the parameters

for the cases to be considered as to be compounded.

[11] The Hon'ble Apex Court in para-61 of Gian

Singh (supra) observed as under:

"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

R/CR.RA/285/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

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

R/CR.RA/285/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

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

R/CR.RA/285/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

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."

[12] Here, in this case, the dispute had arisen

from both the sides because of some properties. The

complainants have filed the Affidavit regarding

settlement of the dispute. Admittedly, the dispute is

a private and personal affair. In view of the

settlement arrived at between the parties, there

exists no scope for any further proceeding in the

R/CR.RA/285/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

matter. Section 320 of the the Cr.P.C. permits

parties to get the offences compounded, certain

offence gets compounded even without the permission

while certain mentioned Sections of the Schedule are

to be permitted for getting compounded. The

punishment of conviction and sentence is to both the

contending parties, the resolution of disputes can

bring peace in the village and in the communities,

when the communities members have resolved to

settle it would be in the interest of justice to permit

the compounding of offence and thus, can allow

peace, law and order to prevail.

[13] In view of the above, the present

applications are allowed. Rule is made absolute.

[14] Accordingly, conviction and sentence dated

14.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Limkheda in Criminal Case

No.1078 of 2005, reaffirmed by judgment and order

dated 04.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10 of th 2017 by learned 4 Additional District & Sesssions

R/CR.RA/285/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

Judge, Limkheda are quashed and set aside.

              The      conviction              and         sentence             dated

30.04.2018         passed      by      learned           Additional         Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Limkheda in Criminal Case

No.840 of 2007, reaffirmed by judgment and order

dated 04.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.08 of th 2018 by learned 4 Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Limkheda are quashed and set aside.

[15] As the impugned orders are quashed and

set aside by this Court, the applicants-accused are

ordered to be released from jail forthwith, if they are

not required in any other case.

[16] Direct service is permitted. Registry to

communicate this order to the concerned

Court/authority through Fax or Email forthwith.

(GITA GOPI,J) MANOJ