Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Dakshaybhai Hasmukhabhai Thakker vs State Of Gujarat & on 15 July, 2015

Author: Abhilasha Kumari

Bench: Abhilasha Kumari

       R/CR.MA/8515/2015                                 JUDGMENT




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                           FIR/ORDER) NO. 8515 of 2015



FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
============================================================
====

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 or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
        DAKSHAYBHAI HASMUKHABHAI THAKKER....Applicant(s)
                           Versus
             STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK A DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR LB DABHI, LEARNED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
        CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
               KUMARI

                                Date : 15/07/2015


                                ORAL JUDGMENT

R/CR.MA/8515/2015 JUDGMENT

1. Rule.   Mr.L.B.   Dabhi,   learned   Additional   Public  Prosecutor,   waives   service   of   notice   of   Rule   for  respondent No.1. Mr.Hardik A. Dave, learned advocate  waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2  (complainant). Considering the facts and circumstances  in which the matter arises, the application is being  heard   and   decided   finally,   at   this   stage,   with   the  consent   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respective  parties.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of  Criminal   Procedure,   1973   ("the   Code"   for   short)   has  been preferred with a prayer to quash and set aside  the   FIR   being   C.R.   No.I­444   of   2014  registered   with  Kamrej   Police   Station,   Surat,   dated   27.10.2014   for  offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the  Indian Penal Code and Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the other consequential  proceedings.

3. The   case   of   the   prosecution,   in   brief,   is   that  when   the   complainant   was   at   his   residence   at   about  5:00   PM,   he   received   a   phone   call   from   one   farmer  Page 2 of 7 R/CR.MA/8515/2015 JUDGMENT Kiranbhai   Patel,   informing   him   that   an   accident   had  taken place between a car bearing Registration No.GJ­ 6­EQ­5141 and a motorcycle bearing registration No.GH­ 5­AD­541 near the sim of village Dhoran, due to which  two   persons   died   on   the   spot   and   two   persons   were  taken   to   Dinbandhu   Hospital   for   treatment.   Upon  receiving the information, the complainant along with  two other persons, namely, Dabhyabhai and Hareshbhai  went to the place of accident where several people had  gathered.   Dabhyabhai,   who   was   with   the   complainant,  identified one dead body to be that of his brother's  wife   Ramilaben   Manharbhai   Kanthariya,   resident   of  Kumbhariya. The other deceased Kishorbhai Durlabhbhai  happened to be a son­in­law of Ramilaben. The   dead  bodies were brought to the Government Hospital, Kamrej  by private vehicle. The other two injured persons were  taken to Dinbandhu Hospital for treatment. Kalpanaben  received serious injury and was under treatment. The  two years old daughter of Kalpanaben died during the  treatment.   The  allegation   is   that   the   driver  of  the  car   bearing   Registration   No.GJ­6­EQ­5141   was   driving  in a rash and negligent manner and the said car dashed  with   the   motorcycle   bearing   registration   No.GJ­5­AD­ Page 3 of 7 R/CR.MA/8515/2015 JUDGMENT 541   from   back   and   caused   accident,   due   to   which  persons riding on the motorcycle, namely Ramilaben and  Kishorebhai died due to serious injuries. Kalpanaben  is admitted to the Hospital for serious injuries and  both   the   vehicles   are   damaged.   Under   the  circumstances, the FIR in question came to be lodged. 

4. It   is   the   case   of   the   applicant,   before   this  Court, that now the matter has been amicably settled  between him and respondent No.2­complainant, who has  filed an affidavit stating that a mutual understanding  and agreement has been arrived at between the parties  and   respondent   No.2­complainant   is   not   desirous   of  prosecuting   the   criminal   proceedings   and   has   no  objection to the quashing of the FIR.

5. Mr.Pravin G. Gondaliya, learned advocate for the  applicant,   has   submitted   that   in   view   of   the  settlement arrived at between the parties as evidenced  by the affidavit of the complainant and two  separate  affidavits   of   the   witnesses,   including   injured  witnesses, the prayers made in the application may be  granted,   as   no   fruitful   purpose   would   be   served   in  Page 4 of 7 R/CR.MA/8515/2015 JUDGMENT prolonging the litigation. 

6. In   support   of   his   submissions,   learned   advocate  for   the   applicant   has   placed   reliance   upon   the  judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of  Madan   Mohan   Abbot   v.   State   of   Punjab  reported   in  (2008)4  582  and  Gian   Singh   v.   State   of   Punjab   And   Another   reported in (2012)10 SCC 303.

7. Mr.L.B.   Dabhi,   learned   Additional   Public  Prosecutor   for   respondent   No.1,   has   objected   to   the  prayer made by the applicant and respondent No.2 and  submits that the law may be permitted to run its own  course.

8. Mr.Hardik   A.   Dave,   learned   advocate   for  respondent   No.2,   has   reiterated   the   stand   taken   by  respondent No.2­complainant in the affidavit affirmed  by him on 06.05.2015, wherein it is stated that with  the   intervention   of   the   respected   members   of   the  society   and   family,   a   mutual   understanding   and  agreement has been arrived at between respondent No.2  and   the   applicant.   Respondent   No.2   has   no   grievance  with the applicant any longer and has no objection,m  if the FIR in question is quashed.

Page 5 of 7

R/CR.MA/8515/2015 JUDGMENT

9. The complainant is present in­person before this  Court and has been identified by his learned advocate.  He  has   endorsed   the   stand   taken   by   him   in   the  affidavit.

10. This   Court   has   heard   learned   counsel   for   the  respective parties and perused the averments made in  the   application   as   well   as   the   contents   of   the  affidavit.

11. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra),  the Supreme Court has held that it is advisable that  in disputes where the question involved is of a purely  personal nature, the courts should ordinarily accept  the terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings,  since keeping the matter alive, with no possibility of  a   result   in   favour   of   the   prosecution,   is   a   luxury  which   the   courts,   grossly   overburdened   as   they   are,  cannot afford. The time so saved can be utilised in  deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.

12. This   position   of   law   has   been   reiterated   in   a  more recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case  Page 6 of 7 R/CR.MA/8515/2015 JUDGMENT of  Gian   Singh   v.   State   of   Punjab   And   Another   (supra).

13. In view of settlement between the applicant and  respondent No.2­complainant and the affidavits of the  complainant as well as two witnesses and considering  the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court  in  Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab  (supra)  and  Gian   Singh   v.   State   of   Punjab   And   Another   (supra),   the following order is passed:

The   complaint,   being  C.R.   No.I­444   of   2014  registered   with   Kamrej   Police   Station,   Surat,  dated   27.10.2015   for   offences   punishable   under  Sections   279   and   304A   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code  and   Sections   177,   184   and   134   of   the   Motor  Vehicles   Act,   1988   and   the   other   consequential  proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside. 

14. The   application   is   allowed   in   the   above   terms.  Rule is made absolute, accordingly.

Direct Service is permitted.

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) piyush Page 7 of 7