Gujarat High Court
Rajkumar Ajaykumar Marri vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2019
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
R/CR.MA/8471/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8471 of 2019
==========================================================
RAJKUMAR AJAYKUMAR MARRI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK SONI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 01/05/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule for the respondentState. The Rule is returnable forthwith on consent.
2. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of the FIR being IC.R.No.61 of 2019, registered with Makarpura Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Complainant is present before this Court, who Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 17:57:05 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/8471/2019 ORDER has filed her affidavitinreply stating therein that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are neighbours and petitioner No.3 is the owner of the house and petitioner No.4 is the friend of the petitioners. According to her, due to intervention of the friends and family members amicable settlement has arrived at between them. It was a dispute with regard to the lease agreement. The settlement has arrived at between the parties has also forming the part of the record.
4. It appears that the complainant has agreed to vacate the premise by 30.04.2019 and has paid the amount in cash. It appears that respondent No.2 insists on execution of the settlement on the ground that she is perturbed about her personal life and is no more wanting to take any cajole with anybody. The owner of the house is not present, petitioner No.3 is the sister of the owner of the house, who has been dealing with this property for the purpose of lease agreement.
5. While permitting the compromise, because of Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 17:57:05 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/8471/2019 ORDER the insistence of the complainant, this Court put a word of caution to petitioner No.3 and others to behave themselves in the future and also deem it appropriate to pay additional amount of Rs.25,000/ towards compensation to the respondent No.2original complainant. They shall have to be paid by all the petitioners jointly. To be deposited in the Bank account of the brother of the respondent No.2original complainant.
6. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners confirmed that there no criminal antecedents of the petitioners.
7. Having thus heard learned advocates on both the sides, it would be profitable to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.', reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein, at Paragraph61, the Apex Court observed as under;
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 17:57:05 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/8471/2019 ORDER 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
8. (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 pre dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 17:57:05 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/8471/2019 ORDER 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 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. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR being IC.R.No.61 of 2019, registered with Makarpura Police Station is QUASHED with all consequential proceedings.
9. According to the respondent No.2, she is in a process of shifting her residential premises Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 17:57:05 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/8471/2019 ORDER though agreed in terms of compromise upto 30.04.2019, let this period be extended till 15.05.2019.
10. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(MS SONIA GOKANI, J) M.M.MIRZA Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 17:57:05 IST 2019