Gujarat High Court
Arvindbhai Kanjibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 27 March, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21991/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 21991 of 2023
==========================================================
ARVINDBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR UTKARSH SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 27/03/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
4. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR No. Part-A- CR No. 11210046231202 of Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 28 20:42:23 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21991/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2024 undefined 2023 registered with Puna Police Station, Surat City for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section 135 of GP Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.08.2023 at around 09.00 pm, after closure of the shop the complainant and his younger brother were returning back to their house on their moped bearing registration no. GJ-05-EB-0297. During that time the police were examining vehicles, having aware of such circumstances complainant parked their vehicle at the side of road and inquired that whether they can use service road on which the police authorities replied affirmatively and both the brothers used the service road to travel further towards their home were they were stopped by the police to which the complainant told them that they had travelled using the service road only after duly verifying the same and obtained permission from police authorities. At that time, one policeman got excited and delivered slap the complainant to which the complainant asked as to why he was being manhandled and was further assaulted by two-three police personnel and the personnel who had slapped him caught him by his neck and forced him to get down off his moped and further assaulted him with stick and hand blows and both of them were taken to police station. At that time one of their friend Devendrasingh Rajpurohit who took the video footage was also severely assulted with stick and hand blows by 7 to 8 policemen. In this regard the complaint came to be filed.
Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 28 20:42:23 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21991/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2024 undefined
6. Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit, which is taken / placed on record. The respondent no.2 is present through video conference. The original complainant- respondent no.2 has categorically stated in the affidavit in support of the prayer of quashing, that the dispute with the petitioner has been resolved amicably and that he has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was in-charge as PSI in the said Police Station and the petitioner had to control his subordinates, and could have ignored the scuffle. Although the petitioner is not named in the FIR, however, as a part of departmental proceedings the petitioner came to be suspended. It is the case of the petitioner that no role is attributed against the present petitioner neither he has made any assault against the present complainant or made any abatement in commission of the alleged offence. Even the complainant has also stated by way of affidavit that the present petitioner has not participated in the said incident or had threatened them. It is needless to say that the administrative action and inquiry action are on different footing, for which it may be resulted in any disciplinary action on the part of the petitioner which cannot be considered as overt act against the petitioner to saddle with criminally in the alleged offence. Hence, no purpose would Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 28 20:42:23 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21991/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2024 undefined serve to continue the litigation against the present petitioner. The complaint filed as stated thus is at Annexure- A to the petition. As no iota of evidence against the present petitioner or any averment made in the complaint.
8. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant/s in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the applicant/s. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..
9. In the aforesaid backdrop, complaint is filed. It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that the powers under Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 28 20:42:23 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21991/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2024 undefined Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.
10. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned complaint being Part-A- CR No. 11210046231202 of 2023 registered with Puna Police Station, Surat City as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant/s herein. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) Radhika Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 28 20:42:23 IST 2024