Kailashben Dixitkumar Bhatt D/O. ... vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 7263 Guj

                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




      R/SCR.A/2140/2014                                         ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023

                                                                                                  undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - POLICE
                    PROTECTION) NO. 2140 of 2014

==========================================================
     KAILASHBEN DIXITKUMAR BHATT D/O. BHIKHABHAI MAKWANA & 3
                              other(s)
                              Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT & 8 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SM AHUJA(118) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 6,7,8,9
MRS REKHA H KAPADIA(2246) for the Respondent(s) No. 6,7,8,9
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                     Date : 04/10/2023

                                       ORAL ORDER

1. Present petition is filed for the following prayers:-

"(21). ....................

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue directions, directing the respondent no.2 to 4 to grant the appropriate police protection and to restrain the respondent no. 6 to 9 and their relatives from committing any offence against the petitioners including petitioner no. 1 to 4 at the behest of respondent no.6 to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/2140/2014 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023

undefined

9 and also be pleased to quash and set aside the F.I.R. being I.C.R. No: 56/2014 registered at Palanpur (West) Police Station on dated 03-05-2014 for the offences punishable under section 354, 506(2), 504, 323, 114 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) and 10 of the Atrocities Act against petitioners no.2 to 4 in the interest of justice.

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or appropriate writ or direction or order or in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari and

(i) Be pleased to hold and declare that the Dy.S.P. S.C. S.T. Cell Palanpur, District: Banaskantha (Mr. Parmar) and the Superintendent of Nari Sanrakshan Gruh, Palanpur (Beenaben Parmar) had not followed the provisions prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and have violated the constitutional mandate given to the citizen.

(ii) Be pleased to hold and declare that the Dy.S.P. S.C. S.T. Cell Palanpur, District: Banaskantha (Mr. Parmar) has acted illegally to keep the petitioner no.1 in illegal confinement of Nari Sanrakshan Gruh, Palanpur in connivance with the Superintendent of Nari Sanrakshan

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/2140/2014 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023

undefined

Gruh, Palanpur (Beenaben Parmar) with extra legal motive and such an action of the Dy.S.P. S.C. S.T. Cell Palanpur, District: Banaskantha (Mr. Parmar) and the Superintendent of Nari Sanrakshan Gruh, Palanpur (Beenaben Parmar) amounts to deprivation of personal life and liberty of petitioner no. 1.

(iii) Be pleased to further hold and declare that the illegal confinement of the petitioner no.1 has been done not in exercise of legal power as conferred by and under the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the act of illegal confinement, sanction is also necessary to accord so as to enable the petitioner no.1 to initiate appropriate available recourse against the illegal action.

(iv) Further be pleased to hold and declare that the petitioner no.1 is deprived of her personal liberty and her constitutional and legal rights have been violated and therefore, the petitioner no.1 is entitled to receive compensation from the Dy.S.P. S.C. S.T. Cell Palanpur, District: Banaskantha (Mr. Parmar) and the Superintendent of Nari Sanrakshan Gruh (Women Protection Cell), Palanpur (Beenaben Parmar).

(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/2140/2014 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023

undefined

your lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate directions to respondent no.2 to 5 to grant appropriate police protection to the petitioners and also restrain the respondent no.6 to 9 from filing any further false complaints against the petitioners and also from committing any offence or illegal activity against the petitioners and also be pleased to stay the further proceedings of F.I.R. being I.C.R. No: 56/2014 registered at Palanpur (West) City Police Station on dated 03-05- 2014 in the interest of justice.

(E) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as deem fit in the interest of justice."

2. Considering the fact that by afflux of time main prayers

made in the present petition will not survive, however, the

matter is required to be considered for the prayer made in

paragraph 21 (B) to the extent of quashing of the impugned

complaint being I-C.R.No.56 of 2014 registered with Palanpur

(West) Police Station dated 3.5.2015 for the offences

punishable under Sections 354, 506 (2), 504, 323 and 114 of

IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act.

3. Heard learned advocate, Ms.Sunita Ahuja for the

petitioner, learned advocate, Ms.Rekha Kapadia for respondent

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/2140/2014 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023

undefined

nos.6 to 9 and learned APP, Mr.Jayswal for the respondent-

State.

4. Mr.Jayswal, learned APP has tendered a report,

however, considering the fact that the complaint is filed by

maternal aunt of petitioner no.1 Kailashben Dixitkumar

Bhatt, who has married to Dixitkumar Bharatbhai Bhatt,

present petition is taken up for consideration.

5. Ms.Ahuja, learned advocate for the petitioner has

submitted now petitioner no.1 is major and she has married

Dixitkumar Bharatbhai Bhatt, petitioner no.2, and they are

having one daughter-Bhavya, aged about 8 years, and one

son-Shiv, aged about four year. She has further submitted

that by afflux of time, petitioner nos.1 and 2 have settled in

their life and they are living together. She has submitted

that the complainant, who happens to be maternal aunt of

petition no.1, now may not have any grievance, as the

petitioner no.1 has already settled with petitioner no.2. She

has further submitted that otherwise also, on bare perusal of

the complaint, the complaint does not disclose any offence,

which are punishable under the provisions of the IPC or

Atrocities Act, and the complaint might have been filed due

to the incident, which has taken place. She has submitted

that considering the relationship between the complainant and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/2140/2014 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023

undefined

petitioner no.1, such incident is not required to be considered

as a criminal offence. She has submitted that no fruitful

purpose will be served in proceeding with the complaint after

ten years and, therefore, she prays to allow present petition

in view of judgment of State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal

reported in AIR 1992 SC 604.

6. On the other hand, learned advocate, Ms.Rekha Kapadia

for the complainant has submitted that, at the relevant point

of time, the complaint was filed as the incident had taken

place but probably, by passage of time, parties may not have

any grievance. She is not in a position to dispute that the

parties are related to each other. She has submitted that

considering the material available on record and the

subsequent developments, as aforesaid, this Honourable Court

may pass appropriate order.

7. Learned APP, Mr.Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent-

State has submitted that though prima facie case is made

out, considering subsequent developments, this Honourable

Court may pass appropriate order. He has submitted that the

petitioners have settled in their life and it seems that the

dispute has started due to some misunderstanding. He has

further submitted that no fruitful purpose will be served if

the petitioners are put to trial, as the complainant may not

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/2140/2014 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023

undefined

support the case of the prosecution during trial. He,

therefore, submits that appropriate order may be passed by

this Honourable Court.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the

learned advocates for the parties. I have also considered the

contents of the complaint. Prima facie, it appears that this is

a case of love affair and due to that alleged incident might

have happened. On bare reading of the FIR, it appears that

the allegations made therein are made under some

misconception. It is also relevant to consider that petitioner

nos.1 and 2 are happily married, they have two children-

Bhavya and Shiv, and they have settled in their life. Not

only that, it also appears that the complainant is not

interested in proceeding further with the complaint. At this

stage, this Court may refer to the decision in the case of

Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. and Another reported in AIR 2009

SC 428, wherein it is observed as under:-

"23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/2140/2014 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023

undefined

certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled.

The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?

24. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.

25. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court dismissing the petitioner's revision

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/2140/2014 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023

undefined

application No.49 of 2003 in Special Case No.80 of 1998 and quash the proceedings against the appellant. The appeal is accordingly allowed."

9. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab &

Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed in para 61 as under:

"61. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and another [18] restated what has been stated in earlier decisions that Section 482 does not confer any new powers on the High Court, it only saves the inherent power which the court possessed before the commencement of the Code. The Court went on to explain the exercise of inherent power by the High Court in paragraph-6 (Pg.94) of the Report as under :

"6. .........It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/2140/2014 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023

undefined

desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law.

That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/2140/2014 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023

undefined

when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised exdebito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/ continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice...."

10. Taking into consideration the nature of the dispute and

the fact that the parties have married and settled in their

life, no useful purpose would now be served to allow the

prosecution to continue with the impugned complaint.

11. In the result, this petition is allowed. The F.I.R. being

I.C.R. No.56/2014 registered at Palanpur (West) Police Station

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/2140/2014 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2023

undefined

dated 03-05-2014 and all other consequential proceedings

pursuant thereto are quashed so far as present petitioners

are concerned. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is

permitted.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) R.S. MALEK