Gujarat High Court
Vinay Saileshbhai Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 5 August, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15480/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 15480 of 2020
==========================================================
VINAY SAILESHBHAI PANDYA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR APURVA K JANI(7057) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HK PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS RICHA SHAH(7541) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 05/08/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned advocates waive
service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
With the consent of learned advocates appearing for respective
parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
since it is jointly stated at the bar by learned advocates on both
the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved
amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
3. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."),
the applicant/s has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint
being FIR being CR No.11202001200015 of 2020 registered
with Mahila Police Station, District Jamnagar for the offences
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15480/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2024
undefined
under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 114 of the IPC and all the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
4. Going through the compilation of the petition, it appears
that complaint is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 against
the petitioners. In the present case, it appears that a matrimonial
dispute has given rise to the impugned FIR wherein it is alleged
that present petitioners under one or another pretext have
tortured the complainant and given kick and fist blows. In this
regard, the FIR in question is filed.
5. Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted
that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have
settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual
settlement, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit
dated 04.08.2024 alongwith a copy of judgment dated
10.05.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.5,
Ahmedabad, which is taken on record. In the Affidavit, the
original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute
with the petitioners has been resolved amicably and that
marriage between her and petitioner No.1 has been dissolved by
the judgment dated 10.05.2023 and hence, she has no objection,
if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there
is no surviving grievance between them.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and considering the fact that marriage between petitioner No.1
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15480/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2024
undefined
and complainant has been dissolved, no purpose would be served
in further prosecuting the present petitioners. In this regard, it
would be apposite to refer the decisions of the Apex Court in
case of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
2023INSC779 / (Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015); Preeti
Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another [(2010)
7 SCC 667]; Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana reported in 2024
INSC 369; Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 741 and Mahalakshmi & Ors.
vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2023 INSC 1050,
it is observed that "this Court noted that the tendency to implicate
the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon
in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that
the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing
with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases, as allegations
of harassment by husband's close relations, who were living in
different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where
the complainant resided, would add an entirely different
complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with
great care and circumspection."
6.1. Even otherwise, so far as offence under Section 323 of the
IPC is concerned, there is on any serious injury being received by
the complainant. Insofar as offence alleged under Section 504 of
the IPC is concerned, the learned Apex Court in the case of
Mohammad Wajid and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15480/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2024
undefined
in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624: 2023 INSC 683, has held that:
"Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - Mere abuse,
discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to
an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504,
IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being
likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of
the peace of an offence and the other element of the
accused intending to provoke the person insulted to
commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the
person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the
peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be
decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of
that case and there cannot be a general proposition
that no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC
if he merely uses abusive language against the
complainant - In judging whether particular abusive
language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has
to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would
be the effect of the abusive language used and not
what the complainant actually did as a result of his
peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of
discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the
abusive language that is the test for considering
whether the abusive language is an intentional insult
likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach
of the peace and not the particular conduct or
temperament of the complainant. (Para 25- 26)
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - One of the
essential elements for constituting an offence under
Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an
act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where
that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary
to know what those words were in order to decide
whether the use of those words amounted to
intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not
possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional
insult is present. (Para 28)"
6.2. It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by
the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15480/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2024
undefined
Procedure is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section
482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the
power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be
careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based
on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised
to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the
highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a
prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are
incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been
collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved,
whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in
their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no
hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which
the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of
quashing the proceeding at any stage as the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has decided in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported
in AIR 2006 SC 2872 and in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court has set
out the categories of cases in which the inherent power under
Section 482 CrPC can be exercised and held in para 102 as under:
"(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15480/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2024
undefined
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
7. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the
principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303,
(ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008)
4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj
Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v)
Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in
2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), in the opinion of this Court, the further
continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners in
relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary
harassment to the petitioners. Further, the continuance of trial
pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the
parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of
justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the
impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in
pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..
8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned
complaint being FIR being CR No.11202001200015 of 2020
registered with Mahila Police Station, District Jamnagar as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15480/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2024
undefined
well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance
thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners
herein. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is
permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
