Gujarat High Court
Deep Sureshbhai Gadhecha & vs State Of Gujarat & on 25 June, 2013
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt
Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt
DEEP SURESHBHAI GADHECHAV/SSTATE OF GUJARAT R/CR.MA/10040/2013 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 10040 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ DEEP SURESHBHAI GADHECHA & 1....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR VM PANCHOLI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2 MR NASIR SAIYED, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS ARCHANA C.RAVAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 25/06/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners.
The petitioners have taken out this petition invoking provision of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the complaint being C.R. No. I-183/2012 lodged with Vijapur Police Station District Mehsana for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code.
Learned advocate for the petitioners has invited this Court s attention to the compromise deed between the parties and submitted that the offence is non-compoundable. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint and when the parties have amicably settled the dispute which is essentially in the private nature, the Court may quash this as even the complainant is present in the Court and learned advocate shri Nasir Saiyed is placing on record affidavit and submitted that he has instruction to appear on behalf of the complainant who is identified by him.
Court requested the learned APP to ascertain this fact from the complainant and she submitted that complainant and the accused have arrived at compromise without any coercion or compulsion from anyone but on their own volition. In light of this, let there be Rule. Rule is fixed forthwith. Learned advocate for respondent no.2 waives service of notice of Rule and Ms. Archana C.Raval, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.1. Learned advocate Shri Saiyed has submitted that he will file his Vakalatnama during the course of the day.
5. The matter is compromised and settled between the parties. Learned advocate for the complainant shri Nasir Saiyed has placed on record affidavit of complainant-respondent no.2. In view of this, learned advocates for the parties have requested this Court to dispose of the matter and the complaint may be quashed.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, and another decision in case of Jay Rajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr, reported in GLR 2013 (1) pg. 65, as well as the observations of this Court in case of Rajbha Babhbha @ Rajendrasinh Annirudhsinh Sarvaiya & Ors, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 260/2013 decided on 21/2/2013; submitted that in light of the observations in these judgments the FIR in question deserves to be quashed.
7. This Court is of the considered view that looking to the averments in FIR and affidavit of the complainant if are considered in light of the observations of the Apex Court in case of Gian Singh (supra) and Jay Rajsinh (supra) and the observations of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 260/2013, then, there exists no further scope of any other investigation in the matter, as it would amount to creating consternation to the parties for no reason and in light of this development conviction is not even remotely plausible.
8. Further, in light of the above observations when the offence is predominantly in arena of private dispute and when there is no harm to person and property, continuation of the proceedings would create consternation and would be counter productive of justice. The Court shall strive to perpetuate a situation where peace is prevailed rather than creating consternation of feuds between the parties.
9. In view of this, the FIR being C.R. No. I-183/2012 lodged with Vijapur Police Station District Mehsana, is hereby quashed along with the subsequent proceedings arising there from. Rule is made absolute.
Direct service permitted.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Pankaj Page 4 of 4