Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Chandrakant Davajibhai Patel & 2 vs State Of Gujarat & on 23 February, 2015

Author: Vipul M. Pancholi

Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi

         R/SCR.A/1010/2015                              ORDER



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1010 of 2015

================================================================
          CHANDRAKANT DAVAJIBHAI PATEL & 2....Applicant(s)
                            Versus
              STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 3
MR NIRAV K PADHIYAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS.H.B.PUNANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

         CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

                             Date : 23/02/2015


                              ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 of the  Constitution   of   India   read   with   Section   482   of   the  Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973,   wherein,   the  petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR  bearing   C.R.No.I­18   of   2015,   registered   with   Idar  Police Station.  

2. Learned   advocate   for   the   petitioners   Shri   Jigar  Gadhvi submitted that FIR bearing C.R.No.I­18 of 2015  registered   with   Idar   Police   Station   against   the  present petitioners under Sections 323, 325, 386, 504,  506(2)   and   114   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   add   with  Page 1 of 8 R/SCR.A/1010/2015 ORDER Section   135   of   the   Gujarat   Police   Act.     Learned  advocate   submitted   that   matter   is   amicably   settled  with the respondent No.2­original first informant and  with the injured witnesses and therefore without going  into the merits of the case, this Court may quash and  set   aside   the   impugned   FIR.     Learned   advocate   has  referred the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2­ original complainant, which is produced at page­19 of  the compilation.  Similarly, affidavit of the injured  witnesses are produced at page 22, 25, and 28 of the  compilation.  Relying upon the said affidavits learned  advocate   submitted   that   when   the   matter   is   amicably  settled   with   the   complainant   and   the   injured  witnesses,   no   useful   purpose   would   be   served   in  continuing the proceedings  against the petitioners.     

3. Learned advocate for the petitioners 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. Learned advocate for the petitioners  Page 2 of 8 R/SCR.A/1010/2015 ORDER further relied upon the orders passed by this Court in  Criminal Misc. Application No.20710 of 2014, Criminal  Misc. Application No.16176 of 2014 and Criminal Misc.  Application   No.11060   of   2014,   and   submitted   that   in  all   the   aforesaid   cases,   the   concerned   complainant  filed the complaint for the offences punishable under  Section   307   and   other   Sections   of   the   Indian   Penal  Code   and   when   the   matter   was   settled   between   the  original   complainant   and   the   injured   witnesses,   the  Hon'ble Courts have quashed the FIR on the ground of  settlement.

4. Learned   advocate   for   the   petitioner   further  relied upon the order dated 19.01.2015 passed by this  Court in Special Criminal Application No.287 of 2015  and   submitted   that   impugned   FIR   be   quashed   and   set  aside.   

5. On   the   other   hand,   learned   advocate   Shri  N.K.Padhiyar   appearing   for   the   respondent   No.2  submitted   that   respondent   No.2   has   amicably   settled  the   matter   with   respondent   No.2   as   well   as   all   the  injured   witnesses   have   settled   the   matter   amicably  with   the   petitioners   and   therefore,   they   have   filed  Page 3 of 8 R/SCR.A/1010/2015 ORDER their   affidavits,   which   is   produced   along   with   the  petition and therefore, if the impugned FIR is quashed  and   set   aside,   the   respondent   No.2   and   the   injured  witnesses have no objection.  Learned advocate for the  respondent No.2 has identified the respondent No.2 and  the injured witnesses who are present in the Court.

6. On   the   other   hand,   learned   APP   Ms.Punani  submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances  of the case and in view of the decisions rendered by  the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court relied upon  by the learned advocate for the petitioner, this Court  may   pass   appropriate   orders   in   the   interest   of  justice.    

7. I   have   considered   the   arguments   canvassed   on  behalf of the learned advocates for the parties.   I  have also gone through the record produced before this  Court.     From   the   record,   it   appears  that   respondent  No.2 and the other injured witnesses have settled the  dispute   with   the   present   petitioners   and   therefore  they have filed affidavits before this Court.  In the  affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, he has stated  in para No.3 and 4 as under:

Page 4 of 8

R/SCR.A/1010/2015 ORDER "3. In   the   present   case,   the   impugned   FIR   was   lodged   by   the   deponent-original   complainant in hot haste.   However, now the   compromise/settlement   has   been   arrived   at  between   the   applicants-original   complainant  with   timely   intervention   of   the   village   leader and other villagers.

4. That,   therefore,   the   deponent   herein   i.e. respondent No.2-original complainant do  not   intend   to   prosecute   with   the   case   any   further and the deponent, therefore, has no  objection if the impugned Fir be quashed and   set aside in the interest of justice."           Similarly,  the   other   injured   witnesses   have  stated the same thing.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra  Yadav (supra) observed in para No.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   IPC which  are  non­compoundable.   Needless  to   say   that     offences     which     are     non­ compoundable   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   non­ compoundable.       In     which     cases   the   High   Court can exercise its discretion to   quash   the  proceedings  will depend   on   facts   and   circumstances   of     each   Page 5 of 8 R/SCR.A/1010/2015 ORDER 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.  

R/SCR.A/1010/2015 ORDER 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 neighbors,  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  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.

9. In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   I   am   of   the   opinion  that,   no   fruitful   purpose   would   be   served   in  continuation   of   the   Criminal   Proceedings   in   the  present case and it will be an exercise in futility.  Justice in the case demands that the dispute between  the parties be put to an end and peace be restored.  When the original complainant and the witnesses have  settled the dispute with the petitioners and when they  Page 7 of 8 R/SCR.A/1010/2015 ORDER are giving their consent for quashing of the FIR, the  chances of the conviction of the petitioners are very  bleak. 

10. In the result, the application is allowed.   FIR  bearing   C.R.No.I­18   of   2015,   registered   with   Idar  Police Station is ordered to be quashed. Consequently,  all   the   proceedings   pursuant   to   the  said   FIR  stands  terminated.  Rule is made absolute.  

11. The   Registry   is   directed   to   accept   the  Vakalatnama   of   Mr.N.K.Padhiyar   for   respondent   No.2­ original complainant. Direct service is permitted.  

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) ANKIT Page 8 of 8