Gujarat High Court
Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Bhalodiya vs State Of Gujarat & on 16 April, 2014
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
R/CR.MA/4598/2009 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 4598 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
JAYESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI BHALODIYA....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR TUSHAR L SHETH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR GAJENDRA P BAGHEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR H.S.SONI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 16/04/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing and Page 1 of 6 R/CR.MA/4598/2009 JUDGMENT setting aside of the complaint bearing No.C.R.No.I-13 of 2009, registered with Bhayavadar Police Station for the offences under Sections 306 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 5, 33 and 34 of Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946. The copy of the FIR has been annexed as Annexure-A.
2. The facts in nutshell for disposal of this case are that on 3.4.2009, the complainant, Sunitaben Makwana, lodged a complaint that she was married to one Dinesh of Bhayavadar and her husband was Stamp Vendor. On 12.1.2009, when she had gone out, at that time, her husband, Dinesh, committed suicide at home and her uncle-in-law informed this matter to the police. Thereafter, inquiry has been conducted and in the inquiry, it has come out that Dinesh has committed suicide. It is further allegation of the complainant that after about 40 days, she found one suicide note lying below DVD player which was written by her husband and from that reading, she came to know that the accused person i.e. the present petitioner was pressurizing and intimidating her husband in order to recover the money. It is allegation of the complainant that her husband committed suicide because of harassment given by the person. Page 2 of 6
R/CR.MA/4598/2009 JUDGMENT
3. However, before presentation of the challan, present petition has been preferred and further proceedings before the trial Court are stayed.
4. Today, learned counsel Mr.Tushar Sheth for the petitioner has submitted that parties have affected compromise and the compromise deed in this regard has been drafted and further the complainant has also filed an affidavit; wherein, the fact regarding the compromise has been stated.
5. On the other hand, Mr.G.B.Baghel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has supported the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and has, in fact, produced the affidavit as well as copy of the compromise deed which has been arrived at between the present petitioner and the complainant.
6. As is apparent from the facts narrated in the petition as well as brought to the notice of this Court by both the counsel, deceased has raised some loan from the petitioner and was not in a position to Page 3 of 6 R/CR.MA/4598/2009 JUDGMENT repay the same and as a result of that, he has committed suicide. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that with the intervention of respected members of the family and that of the society, by mutual understanding, the matter has been settled and now original complainant i.e. wife of the deceased has no grievance against the accused i.e. petitioner of this petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced a decision of Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH V/S.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303; wherein, the Court has held thus:
"37. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab[22], in the appeal before this Court which arose from an order of the High Court refusing to quash the FIR against the appellant lodged under Sections 379, 406, 409, 418, 506/34, IPC on account of compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused, in paragraphs 5 and 6 (pg. 584) of the Report, the Court held as under :
"5. It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has on 11-1-2004 passed away and the Page 4 of 6 R/CR.MA/4598/2009 JUDGMENT possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out.
6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as 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 and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."
8. However, on the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the petition by submitting that husband of the complainant has lost his life because of threats given by the petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the offences are non-compoundable even with the permission of the Court, the FIR, in question, cannot be quashed.
9. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the sides. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the State, it cannot be said that the deceased husband of the complainant has committed suicide because of the threats given by the appellant. It cannot be anticipated now as to what was going in the mind of the deceased before committing suicide. It is admitted case that the husband of the complainant Page 5 of 6 R/CR.MA/4598/2009 JUDGMENT has raised a loan from the petitioner and was unable to repay the same. The necessary ingredients of abetment to suicide are missing in this case.
10. The fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and agreement supported by the affidavit has been placed on record, this Court is of the view that prosecution can be restrained from further proceeding in the matter. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court, amicable settlement between the parties and there are no other male member in the family to pursue the matter further, the FIR and subsequent proceedings are ordered to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, present Criminal Misc. Application is allowed. Rule made absolute.
(MOHINDER PAL, J.) ashish Page 6 of 6