Gujarat High Court
Hada Dhaval Kausikbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 28 September, 2020
Author: A. P. Thaker
Bench: A. P. Thaker
R/CR.MA/10688/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10688 of 2020
==========================================================
HADA DHAVAL KAUSIKBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
POOJA D BASWAL(9601) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS. MAITHILI MEHTA, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
Date : 28/09/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Ms. Pooja Baswal, learned advocate for the applicants and Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned APP for the respondent State through Video-conferencing.
2. Ms. Pooja Baswal, learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that Mr. Prakash Tomar, learned advocate has filed his Vakalatnama for the original complainant with the Registry last Friday. Registry is directed to accept his Vakalatnama and place it on record.
3. On 23.09.2020, this Court has passed an order wherein it was observed that the complainant Ms. Pooja D/o. Sumanchandra@Poojaben W/o. Sidhharth Mehta, was present and she had accepted that there is a settlement arrived at between the parties and has no objection if the complaint is quashed.
Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 28 22:03:47 IST 2020R/CR.MA/10688/2020 ORDER
4. Considering the short dispute involved as also the settlement between the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
5. An F.I.R. came to be registered at C.R.No.11191032200149 complaining that the complainant is the Ex-wife of the accused No.1, now divorced, wherein out of their wedlock they have one daughter namely Pihu who is aged about 4 years and is residing with the complainant and her new husband. It is alleged that Accused No.1 came to meet her daughter and after meeting while he was leaving the accused no.1 indulged into fight with her new husband pertaining to the meeting time of her daughter and hence he started abusing both of them. Upon being intervened by the complainant's brother he was also abused and beaten by the accused nos.2 and 3 and then upon looking at the crowd, all 3 accused eloped the scene.
6. Pending investigation/trial, the complainant i.e. respondent No.2 tenders affidavit acknowledging settlement between the complainant and the applicants. In her affidavit, in Paras- 1 and 2, she has narrated the said fact as under:
"1. I submit that under influence of my family members and under the spur of moments, I had lodged the impugned FIR dated 10/03/2020, bearing C.R. No. 11191032200149 of 2020 registered with Maninagar Police Station, District:
Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable U/s. 326, 120_B, 114 of I.P.C. against the present Petitioners.
2. I state that upon the intervention of the prominent members of the society and elder persons, an amicable settlement has been arrived at between me and the Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 28 22:03:47 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/10688/2020 ORDER petitioners herein and since the offences alleged against are personal in nature not affecting any interest of the state government wherein it has been agreed to compromise the entire dispute including the impugned complaint filed by me against the present petitioners. I hereby accord my consent to this Hon'ble Court to quash the impugned FIR dated 10/03/2020 bearing C.R. No. 11191032200149 of 2020 registered with Maninagar Police Station, District: Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable U/s. 326, 120_B, 114 of IPC and consequently all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR also be quashed and set aside, qua the petitioners which would serve the purpose of justice."
7. Learned APP has submitted that in view of the earlier order passed by this Court, she has received instructions from the Police Authority that the aforesaid settlement is genuine.
8. In the case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in para 61, laid-down the following proposition of law while distinguishing Section 482 from Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Hon'ble Apex provided the illustrative category of cases suitable for settlement and it was observed that heinous crimes like robbery, dacoity and rape etc. cannot be settled and suitability of the cases for settlement will depend upon the facts of each individual case. It was held that even the cases which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can be settled under Section 482 of the Code, if the High Court finds the element of settlement. Para 61 reads as under:-
"61. The position that emerges from the above Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 28 22:03:47 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/10688/2020 ORDER discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 28 22:03:47 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/10688/2020 ORDER proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
9. Considering the ratio as above, submissions of the learned A.P.P. cannot be countenanced. Mere invocation of the provisions for serious offences would not necessarily lead to inference of commission of such offences. It is noticed that in the complaint, half-hearted allegation against the applicants is made and further, when respondent No.2 - complainant has made intention of not supporting the prosecution case, clear by filing an affidavit, chances of prosecution succeeding against the applicants are very bleak. Only achievement in such a trial would be wastage of public time, money and energy. Under the circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to acknowledge the settlement placed on record by way of affidavit by respondent No.2 - complainant.
9. Accordingly, the settlement is acknowledged and the complaint and all connected proceedings arising therefrom, qua the present applicants, are quashed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
(DR. A. P. THAKER, J) SAJ/SALIM Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 28 22:03:47 IST 2020