Gujarat High Court
Dashrathlal Kashiramdas Patel vs State Of Gujarat & on 3 March, 2015
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
R/SCR.A/1217/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1217 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
=============================================
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 ?
=============================================
DASHRATHLAL KASHIRAMDAS PATEL....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR DILIP B RANA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS HB PUNANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 03/03/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned APP Ms. Punani waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Abhay P. Shah waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2 - original complainant.
Page 1 of 6R/SCR.A/1217/2015 JUDGMENT
2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
3. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), wherein, the petitioner has prayed that the FIR being C.R.No.I9/2015 lodged with B Division Patan City Police Station be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned advocate Shri Dilip B. Rana for the petitioner. Learned advocate submitted that FIR being C.R.No.I9/2015 came to be registered with B Division Patan City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. However, immediately after the registration of the said FIR, matter is settled out of the Court with the respondent No.2 - complainant and therefore he has filed an affidavit on 18.02.2015, which is produced at AnnexureB with the compilation. In the said affidavit, respondent No.2 - original complainant has stated that because of some mistake he has filed the said FIR. However, when the correct facts were revealed, now, he is not inclined to proceed with the said FIR. Learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that in this proceeding also the respondent No.2 has filed the affidavit, wherein, he has stated that if the impugned FIR is quashed and set aside by this Court, he has no objection.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in AIR 2014 SC 3055. Learned advocate for the petitioner further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 as well as the decision Page 2 of 6 R/SCR.A/1217/2015 JUDGMENT rendered in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I., reported in AIR 2009 (SC) 428 and submitted that in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, the impugned FIR be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.
6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Abhay Shah appearing for respondent No.2 has also submitted that the dispute is settled out of the Court and the FIR is filed on account of some mistake on the part of respondent No.2. Learned advocate further submitted that the respondent No.2 has filed the affidavit. Para 2 and 3 of the said affidavit read as under:
"2. I say and submit that the settlement has been arrived at between the deponent i.e. orig. complainant with present petitioner outside of the Hon'ble Court due to intervention of common friends. Thus, now the dispute between the present petitioner and deponent has been amicably settled and there is no enmity between the parties. I say that the deponent has now no further dispute with the present petitioner.
3. I therefore the respondent No.2 - original complainant states on oath that I have no objection if the above mentioned FIR being IC.R.No.9/2015, registered with Patan 'B' Division Patan City Police Station and all the consequential proceedings pursuant thereto is quashed and set aside qua the present petitioner."
7. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that if the impugned FIR is quashed and set aside, respondent No.2 has no objection. Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has identified the respondent No.2, who is personally present in the Court. Learned advocate has further submitted that he will file his Vakalatnama during the course of the day Page 3 of 6 R/SCR.A/1217/2015 JUDGMENT in the Registry. Registry is directed to accept the Vakalatnama of learned advocate Shri Abhay Shah appearing for respondent No.2 - original complainant.
8. Learned APP Ms. Punani submitted that from the averments made in the petition and from the affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it appears that dispute is settled out of the Court and therefore in the facts and circumstances of the present case this Court may pass appropriate order in the interest of justice.
9. I have considered the arguments canvassed on behalf of the learned advocates for the parties. I have also gone through the affidavit filed by respondent No.2. From the record, it appears that respondent has, out of the Court settled the dispute with the petitioner and he has specifically stated that because of some mistake, he has lodged the said FIR against the petitioner. However, now, he is not inclined to proceed with the said complaint. He has further stated in his affidavit that if the impugned FIR is quashed and set aside, he has no objection.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav (Supra) observed in para 4 to 7 as under:
"4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code which are noncompoundable. Needless to say that offences which are noncompoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[1]). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are Page 4 of 6 R/SCR.A/1217/2015 JUDGMENT noncompoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.
5. In Gian Singh this Court has observed that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. Needless to say that the above observations are applicable to this Court also.
6. Learned counsel for the parties have requested this Court that the impugned order be set aside as the High Court has not noticed the correct position in law in regard to quashing of criminal proceedings when there is a compromise. Affidavit has been filed in this Court by complainant Anil Mandal, who is respondent No. 2 herein. In the affidavit he has stated that a compromise petition has been filed in the lower court. It is further stated that he and the appellants are neighbours, that there is harmonious relationship between the two sides and that they are living peacefully. He has further stated that he does not want to contest the present appeal and he has no grievance against the appellants. Learned counsel for the parties have confirmed that the disputes between the parties are settled; that parties are abiding by the compromise deed and living peacefully. They have Page 5 of 6 R/SCR.A/1217/2015 JUDGMENT urged that in the circumstances pending proceedings be quashed. State of Jharkhand has further filed an affidavit opposing the compromise. The affidavit does not persuade us to reject the prayer made by the appellant and the second respondent for quashing of the proceedings.
7. In view of the compromise and in view of the legal position which we have discussed hereinabove, we set aside the impugned order dated 4/7/2012 and quash the proceedings in S.C.No.9/05 pending on the file of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda. The appeal is disposed of."
11. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner and it will be an exercise in futility. Justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored. Moreover, when the respondent No.2 has settled the dispute with the petitioner, chances of conviction of the petitioner are very bleak and therefore to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed. The FIR being C.R.No.I9/2015 lodged with B Division Patan City Police Station is ordered to be quashed. Consequently, all further proceedings pursuant to the said FIR shall stand terminated. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Jani Page 6 of 6