Gujarat High Court
Shobhanaben Vikrambhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 10 July, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20806/2014 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 20806 of 2014
==========================================================
SHOBHANABEN VIKRAMBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS PRIYANKA THAKKAR FOR MR JV JAPEE(358) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,2,3,4
MR HB CHAMPAVAT(6149) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOAHAM M JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 10/07/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Soaham Joshi, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1- State of Gujarat. Mr. H.B. Champavat, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.3- original complainant.
2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the F.I.R. being C.R. No.II-398 of 2014 filed before the Vijapur Police Station, District-Mehsana, for the offence punishable under Sections-323, 504, 506(2) r/w. 114 of the I.P.C.
Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 16 20:35:54 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20806/2014 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2024 undefined
3. Ms. Priyanka Thakkar, learned advocate appearing Mr. J.V. Jappee, learned advocate for the applicants submits that the FIR is registered against total four accused persons, who happens to be the relatives of the wife of the complainant. Learned advocate further submits that there was some matrimonial disputes between the complainant and his wife and due to which, the wife has initiated proceedings under Section-498A of IPC against the husband and in-laws and as a counter-blast of the said prosecution instituted by the wife, the present complaint is filed by the complainant- husband by creating false, fabricated and concocted story. Learned advocate further submits that immediately after registration of the FIR, the applicants have approached this Hon'ble Court by way of preferring the present application and wherein, considering the averments made in the present application as well as allegations and accusations raised against the applicant-accused in the body of FIR, a co-ordinate bench of this Hon'ble Court has protected the applicants-accused persons and since then, the investigation is stayed. Learned advocate further submits that during the pendency of present proceedings, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties outside of the court. Learned advocate further submits that main dispute cropped up between the husband and wife, has already been resolved. Learned advocate further submits that today complainant is personally remain present before this Court and he has also filed an affidavit specifically stating that the matter is settled between the parties and he has no objection, if the proceedings institution against the Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 16 20:35:54 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20806/2014 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2024 undefined present applicants are to be quashed and set aside.
4. Mr. H.B. Champavat, learned advocate, who appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 - complainant has candidly submitted that infact, the matter is amicably settled between the parties outside of the court. He further submits that the complainant viz.Vipulbhai Kantibhai Patel is personally remain present before this Court and identified the complainant and verified the signature of the complainant. He further submits that the complainant has filed an affidavit specifically stating that he has no objection, if the proceedings instituted against the applicants by him would be quashed and set aside.
5. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned APP has adopted the argument advanced by the learned advocate Mr. H.B. Champavat for the respondent no.2 - complainant.
6. I would like to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apxe Court in the case of Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in AIR 2019 Supreme Court 2109, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 504 IPC, the basic ingredients are required to be satisfied, which are (i) intentional insult, (ii) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (iii) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The following ingredients are required to be satisfied so as to invoke the provisions of Section 506; (i) that the accused Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 16 20:35:54 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20806/2014 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2024 undefined threatened some person, (ii) that such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of some one in whom he was interested; and (iii) that he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
A plain reading of the allegations in the FIR in question, in the opinion of this Court, does not satisfy all the aforesaid basic and essential ingredients so as to invoke the provisions of Section 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant.
7. In the case of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2024) 4 Supreme 347, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed and held as under:
"20. It is now well settled that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. It is also well settled that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
xxx xxx xxx
23. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can, and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 16 20:35:54 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20806/2014 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2024 undefined
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction.
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged.
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge."
8. It is well settled that where the Court finds that the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused and/or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him/her due to private and personal grudge, in that event, the Court should exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code by quashing the FIR/complaint. Here in the instant case, from the bare reading of the contents of the FIR in question, it transpires that no offence much less the offence under Sections 504 and 506(2) are made out against the applicants- accused. Thus, from bare perusal of the FIR itself, none of the ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are spelt out.
9. Taking into consideration the nature of the dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute outside of the Court, no useful purpose would now be served to Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 16 20:35:54 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20806/2014 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2024 undefined allow to continue with the investigation. An affidavit filed by the original complainant viz. Vipulbhai Kantibyhai Patel is ordered to be taken on record.
10. For the forgoing reasons, this application is allowed. The C.R. No.II-398 of 2014 filed before the Vijapur Police Station, District-Mehsana, is hereby ordered to be quashed qua the present applicants herein. All consequential proceedings pursuant thereto shall stand terminated.
Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 16 20:35:54 IST 2024