Gujarat High Court
Jashvantbhai Sardarbhai Pargi vs State Of Gujarat on 10 January, 2019
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
R/CR.MA/334/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 334 of 2019
================================================================
JASHVANTBHAI SARDARBHAI PARGI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR A A ZABUAWALA(6823) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 10/01/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondentState.
2. Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
3. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR bearing IC.R. Page 1 of 5 R/CR.MA/334/2019 ORDER No.14 of 2015 registered with Fatepura Police Station, DistrictDahod for the commission of offences punishable under Section 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and under Section 4 and 17 of POCSO Act as well as all other consequential proceeding arising out of the aforesaid FIR.
4. Mr. A.A. Zabuawala, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner has married with the daughter of the complainant on 28.12.2016. The petitioner is present before this Court, who has already married with the victim girl.
The original complainant viz. Kuhgabhai Kalubhai Taviyad is also present with his daughter before this Court. She has a child from their matrimonial relationship. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No.2original complainant has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is, therefore, submitted that the present application may be allowed.
Page 2 of 5R/CR.MA/334/2019 ORDER
5. The petitioner and victim are also directed to register their marriage and produce the copy of the Registration of Marriage before this Court within a period of Four Weeks.
6. A copy of the Registration of Marriage shall also be supplied to the investigating officer to keep the same as a part of the record.
7. This Court has heard learned advocates for both the sides and has taken into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
" 61. The position that emerges from the above 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 Page 3 of 5 R/CR.MA/334/2019 ORDER 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 Page 4 of 5 R/CR.MA/334/2019 ORDER 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 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."
8. Considering genuineness of compromise and as their case fits into the criterion laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred decision, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the First Information Report.
9. First Information Report being IC.R. No.14 of 2015 registered with Fatepura Police Station, DistrictDahod is accordingly quashed and set aside.
All consequential proceedings arising from the said First Information Report are also quashed and set aside. Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Direct service is permitted.
(SONIA GOKANI, J.) PALLAVI Page 5 of 5