Dashrathbhai Dahyaji Thakore vs State Of Gujarat on 26 August, 2021

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Dashrathbhai Dahyaji Thakore vs State Of Gujarat on 26 August, 2021

Bench: Ilesh J. Vora

      R/CR.MA/18053/2019                                    ORDER DATED: 26/08/2021




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18053 of 2019

                             With
         R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 15402 of 2019
                             With
         R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 15661 of 2019
                             With
         R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17171 of 2019
=============================================
                           DASHRATHBHAI DAHYAJI THAKORE
                                      Versus
                                 STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PUNIT B JUNEJA(3972) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MRS.KRINA CALLA APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

                                    Date : 26/08/2021

                               COMMON ORAL ORDER

[1] By way of the present applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the applicants have prayed for quashment/quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR bearing I-C.R.No.39 of 2019 registered with Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicants.

[2] The brief facts leading to file the present applications are as under:-

The FIR bearing I-C.R.No.39 of 2019 was registered Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 31 22:29:36 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/18053/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2021 with Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) against the applicants and others for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 & 114 of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, alleging the facts that the land bearing block No.501 ad-measuring 9713 sq.mtrs has been sold out by the applicants herein by way of the forged power of attorney, whereby the applicants have committed offence of forgery and fraudulently used as genuine for the purpose of cheating.

[3] Heard Mr.M.B.Gandhi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.Chintan Gandhi, learned counsel, Mr.Sudhir Nanavati, learned senior counsel for Nanavati Associates, Mr.R.S.Sanjanwala, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.Aditya Sanjanwala, learned counsel, Mr.M.T.Pathak, learned counsel and Mrs.Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent State.

[4] Learned counsels appearing for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have amicably settled the disputes outside the Court. Pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties, the respondent - Bhikhiben Thakore filed affidavit, wherein she has given no objection to quash, the FIR and criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR. In the aforesaid backgrounds of the facts, it is submitted by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of the process of law and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code.

Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 31 22:29:36 IST 2021

R/CR.MA/18053/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2021 [5] The Affidavit of the respondent - informant discloses that during the pendecy of the present applications, settlement has been taken place between the parties. As a result of which, Civil Suit No.29 of 2017 has been withdrawn with the terms and conditions of settlement and has received Rupees Ten Lakhs as a part of her share in the property and has executed registered confirmation-cum-kabulat deed. Therefore, if the applications are allowed, she has no objection.

[6] In view of the facts and the settlement arrived at between the parties and considering the nature of dispute, it appears that the dispute is private in nature. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that since the informant is not supporting the allegations made in the FIR, the chances of conviction would be remote and/or bleak and further proceedings thereof would futile. In this context, the reference can be made in the case of Prabhatbhai Ahir @Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:-

"(I) Section 482 of CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence.

While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 31 22:29:36 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/18053/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2021 Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 31 22:29:36 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/18053/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2021

(ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

[7] Resultantly, the present applications are allowed and the impugned FIR bearing I-C.R.No.39 of 2019 registered with Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) and all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside qua the applicants.

(ILESH J. VORA,J) Manoj Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 31 22:29:36 IST 2021

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court