Gujarat High Court
Shailesh Laxmidas Nanda & 7 vs State Of Gujarat & on 19 January, 2015
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
R/SCR.A/287/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 287 of 2015
=============================================
SHAILESH LAXMIDAS NANDA & 7....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL S RACHH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 8
MS HB PUNANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NANDISH THAKKAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 19/01/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. HB Punani waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Nandish Thakkar waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2 - original complainant.
2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing C.R.No.I221 of 2014 registered with the City 'A' Division Police Station, Jamnagar, on the ground that the entire dispute has been settled between the complainant and the petitioners amicably. The aforesaid FIR is registered for the offences punishable under sections 307, 352, 504, 506(2), 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Rachh for the petitioner submitted that on 27.10.2014, the respondent No.2 has lodged the impugned FIR, alleging that four days prior to the alleged incident during Diwali festival, certain dispute Page 1 of 7 R/SCR.A/287/2015 ORDER took place between the nephew of respondent No.2 and the petitioner Nos. 5 to 8 and thereafter when the respondent No.2 and his relatives went to meet the petitioners for the purpose of the settlement of the said dispute, petitioners assaulted the respondent No.2 and his relatives with weapons and thereby committed the alleged offence. However, the learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that both the sides i.e. the petitioners and original complainant and the injured witnesses belonging to the same caste and after filing the FIR, the respondent No.2 - complainant realized that he had filed the FIR out of anger, misunderstanding and misconception and with the intervention of the elderly persons of the society, now the entire dispute is resolved and therefore the respondent No.2 - original complainant and other witnesses have filed the affidavits in favour of the petitioners wherein they have stated that the dispute is amicably settled between the parties. The respondent No. 2 and the witnesses have stated on oath by way of affidavit filed before this Court that if the impugned FIR is quashed, they are not objecting for the same and they are giving their consents for quashment of the FIR. It is further stated that they do not wish to prosecute the proceedings which are filed against the present petitioners by way of the impugned FIR.
4. The original affidavits tendered by the respondent No.2 and the witnesses are taken on record.
5. Respondent No.2 - original complainant and the witnesses are personally present before this Court and the learned APP Ms. Punani has also verified from the said complainant and the witnesses as to whether they have filed these affidavits without fear or favour and they have stated that they have voluntarily given these affidavits before this Court and if the impugned FIR is quashed, they have no objection.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State Page 2 of 7 R/SCR.A/287/2015 ORDER of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in AIR 2014 SC 3055. Learned advocate for the petitioner further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466. Learned advocate for the petitioners further relied upon the orders passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.20710 of 2014, Criminal Misc. Application No.16176 of 2014 and Criminal Misc. Application No.11060 of 2014, and submitted that in all the aforesaid cases, the concerned complainant filed the complaint for the offences punishable under Section 307 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and when the matter was settled between the original complainant and the injured witnesses, the Hon'ble Courts have quashed the FIR on the ground of settlement.
7. On the other hand, learned APP Ms. Punani submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court may pass appropriate order in the interest of justice.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and having gone through the documents produced on record and the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner, I am of the view that the respondent No.2 - original complainant and the witnesses have voluntarily arrived at the settlement with the petitioners for which the affidavit is filed by the complainant. Respondent No.2 original complainant, in para 4 and 5 of his affidavit, stated thus:
"4. I say that after registration of the impugned FIR a meeting took place between both the sides and the misunderstanding between us got cleared. Both the sides belong to the same caste and upon intervention of elderly persons of the society and common friends, the matter has been resolved between us and an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties so as to maintain peaceful and healthy personal relationships in Page 3 of 7 R/SCR.A/287/2015 ORDER future. In view of amicable settlement the complainant side has agreed to support the petitioners in respect of prosecution initiated against the petitioners on the basis of impugned FIR. After due deliberations and discussions amongst the parties, I have realized that FIR is the result of misunderstanding and misconception of facts. Hence, as per the mutual understanding and settlement, I have agreed to give consent for quashing of impugned FIR. Thus, I do not want to prosecute the impugned FIR against the petitioners. In the circumstances, it is crystal clear that dispute between the parties is purely of personal/private nature and no public policy is involved in the same. It is also clearly reflected that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and in respectful submission of petitioners quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice. I have also realized the nature of hardships and inconvenience, socially and mentally, it will cause to both the sides, if the criminal proceedings continue and both the sides are subjected to rigors of criminal trial, it will immensely affect our future prospects of better life.
5. In the facts and circumstances as narrated above, I at my free will, wish and desire am stating on oath that I do not wish to prosecute the criminal proceedings with petitioners as the dispute between us has been amicably settled. I state that the complaint filed by me being C.R.No.I221/2014 with City 'A' Division Police Station, Jamnagar for the offences punishable u/s. 307, 352, 504, 506(2), 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, u/s. 135(1) of GP Act, as well as all proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav (Supra) observed in para 4 to 7 as under:
"4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code which are noncompoundable. Needless to say that offences which are noncompoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh Page 4 of 7 R/SCR.A/287/2015 ORDER v. State of Punjab[1]). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are noncompoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.
5. In Gian Singh this Court has observed that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the 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. Needless to say that the above observations are applicable to this Court also.
6. Learned counsel for the parties have requested this Court that the impugned order be set aside as the High Court has not noticed the correct position in law in regard to quashing of criminal proceedings when there is a compromise. Affidavit has been filed in this Court by complainant Anil Mandal, who is respondent No. 2 herein. In the affidavit he has stated that a compromise petition has been filed in the lower court. It is further stated that he and the appellants are neighbours, that there is harmonious relationship between the two sides and that they are living peacefully. He has further stated that he does not want to contest the present appeal and he has no grievance against the appellants. Learned counsel for the parties have confirmed that Page 5 of 7 R/SCR.A/287/2015 ORDER the disputes between the parties are settled; that parties are abiding by the compromise deed and living peacefully. They have urged that in the circumstances pending proceedings be quashed. State of Jharkhand has further filed an affidavit opposing the compromise. The affidavit does not persuade us to reject the prayer made by the appellant and the second respondent for quashing of the proceedings.
7. In view of the compromise and in view of the legal position which we have discussed hereinabove, we set aside the impugned order dated 4/7/2012 and quash the proceedings in S.C.No.9/05 pending on the file of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda. The appeal is disposed of."
10. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in continuation of the criminal proceedings in the present case and it will be an exercise in futility. Justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored. In the result, this application is allowed. The FIR being C.R.No.I221 of 2014 registered with the City 'A' Division Police Station, Jamnagar is ordered to be quashed. Consequently, all further proceedings pursuant to the said FIR shall stand terminated. Rule is made absolute.
11. The Registry to accept the Vakalatnama of Mr. Nandish Thakkar, who is appearing for respondent No.2 - original complainant.
12. Learned advocate for the petitioners pointed out that after filing of the present petition, petitioner Nos. 2 and 6 are released on regular bail. However, the remaining petitioners i.e. petitioners No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are still in the jail. In view of the fact that the FIR and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are quashed, the concerned jail authorities are directed to release the petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of this petition forthwith. Direct service today is permitted.
Page 6 of 7 R/SCR.A/287/2015 ORDER
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)
Jani
Page 7 of 7