Gujarat High Court
Parmar Rameshbhai Pratapbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 20 June, 2022
Author: Samir J. Dave
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.RA/888/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 888 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE Sd/-
====================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to YES
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of NO
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of NO
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India
or any order made thereunder ?
====================================================
PARMAR RAMESHBHAI PRATAPBHAI & 2 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
====================================================
Appearance:
MR GC RAY(721) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR MAHESH K POOJARA(5879) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS M. H. BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 20/06/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 8
Downloaded on : Fri Jun 24 20:26:55 IST 2022
R/CR.RA/888/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2022
1. By this application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit and allow this application;
(B) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records and proceedings of below mentioned Annexure-A and B from the Hon'ble Trial Court;
(C) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by JMFC, Waghodiya in C.C. Case No.383/2012 and in Criminal Appeal No.76/2013-
New No.12/2015 by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Savli, Vadodara at Savli dated 21.10.2016 at Annexure-A and B;
(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant bail to the petitioners as they were on bail during the trial.
(E) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the affidavit of the petitioners as the petitioners are in jail;
(F) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such other and further order/s as may be deemed necessary."
2. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes, learned advocate for respondent no.2- original complainant jointly with learned advocate for the applicants submitted that offence may be permitted to be compounded.
3. It appears from the record that applicants were put to trial in the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, in Criminal Case No.383 of 2012 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court vide judgment and order dated Page 2 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 24 20:26:55 IST 2022 R/CR.RA/888/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2022 29.06.2013 held the applicants herein guilty for the offence punishable under sections 325 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. As the applicants came to be convicted by the Trial Court, they preferred Criminal Appeal No.12/2015 (Old Case No.76/2013) in the Court of the learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vadodara at Savli. The appeal came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Court, Vadodara vide order dated 21.10.2016 and applicants herein were convicted for the offence punishable under sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved with the same, the applicants have come up with this application.
5. The respondent no.2 being heir of original first informant is produced on record an affidavit, wherein the original complainant confirms about the settlement having been arrived at. In the affidavit, the complainant stated as under:
"1. I say and submit that being a victim/ injured witness in relation to FIR registered before Waghodiya Police Station bearing CR no.II-228 of 2011, I am filing this affidavit before this Hon'ble Court as I am aware about facts and circumstances in detail about present case. I further say and submit that said FIR registered by my mother named Narmadaben Babarbhai Solanki who after passage of time expired on 06.08.2019. A copy of death certificate annexed hereto with this affidavit.
2. I say and submit that in relation to said FIR the learned trial Court passed the order of conviction against the petitioners and same has been challenged by way of Criminal Appeal before the learned Sessions Court Vadodara at Savli which came to be rejected. I say and submit that against both the order petitioner herein filed present Criminal Revision Application before this Hon'ble Court.
3. I say and submit that the grievances between petitioners and me have been amicably settled due to interference of Page 3 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 24 20:26:55 IST 2022 R/CR.RA/888/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2022 relatives and colleagues. Therefore, there is nothing left for me to proceed against them before any Court. I say that there is no permanent nature of injury to me and we are living in same village since long peacefully without any grievance.
4. I say that there is no force, coercion or undue influence on me from any corner.
5. I say and submit that I have no grievance if the Hon'ble Court quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the JMFC Court of Waghodiya in Criminal Case No.383 of 2012 and also Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2013 (New number is 12 of 2015) passed by the Additional District and Sessiosn Court of Vadodara, at Savli dated 21.10.2016 and further allowed the prayer made by the petitioner in the present application."
6. In case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Apex court has considered the relative scope of section 482 and section 320 of the Code and has laid down the parameters as to in what kind of cases and facts and circumstances, the High Court can advert to its inherent power under section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court examined previous decisions of the Apex Court in cases of B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma vs. State reported in (2008) 16 SCC 1.
7. In Gian Singh (supra), it is held, "57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its Page 4 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 24 20:26:55 IST 2022 R/CR.RA/888/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2022 inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment."
"58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly Page 5 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 24 20:26:55 IST 2022 R/CR.RA/888/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2022 any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed."
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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and 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 victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and Page 6 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 24 20:26:55 IST 2022 R/CR.RA/888/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2022 continuation of criminal case would put 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 law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
8. It is pertinent to note that the above issue is squarely covered by a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court rendered in case of Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) 2 Mah. L.J. 856, and in a decision of this Court in case of Ashishbhai Nagindas Navsarivala Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., decided on 16.11.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application No.27481 of 2017 as well as in decisions of the Coordinate Benches of this Court in case of Rajeshbhai @ Raju Mangubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., decided on 20.11.2017 in Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.8878 of 2017 and in case of Bachubhai Mangalbhai Chavda Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., decided on 09.01.2013 in Criminal Revision Application No.160 of 2011, the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India include the powers to quash the FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any court subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification.
Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 24 20:26:55 IST 2022R/CR.RA/888/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2022
9. It was also observed that exercise of inherent powers by the High Court would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not permissible to have a straight jacket formula. No precise and inflexible guidelines can be provided.
10. The settlement has brought peace in the society and the parties who were once aggrieved, are now contended and are willing to lead harmonious life. In such circumstances, continuance of criminal proceedings will not serve any purpose. On the contrary, it would harassing and also counteractive to the congenial relationship which is restored between the parties.
11. In view of the above, this application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 29.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Waghodiya in Criminal Case No.383 of 2012 as well as order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vadodara at Savli in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2015 (Old Case No.76/2013) are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J) MEHUL B. TUVAR Page 8 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 24 20:26:55 IST 2022