Gujarat High Court
Bhratbhai Bhikhabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 30 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15776/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 15776 of 2016
==========================================================
BHRATBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TULSHI R SAVANI(3070) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.SANAT B PANDYA(6976) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date : 30/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quash of the FIR being I-Crime Register No.23 of 2016 registered with Balasinor Police Station, Mahisagar District for the offence punishable under Sections 384 and 511 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP Mr.Hardik Soni for the State and learned counsel Mr.Sanat Pandya for the second respondent.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, both the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for second respondent-defacto complainant, submit that both the parties have entered into a compromise as both of them are members of one society and they have amicably settled the matter at the instance of the elders and other members of the society. They have also filed an affidavit to this effect.
Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 01 20:39:57 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15776/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2024 undefined
4. As per the allegations in the FIR, second respondent has made some illegal construction by extending parapet wall of his house in the portion of common plot of the society, which is contrary to the norms of the society. The petitioner herein has demanded a sum of Rs.90,000/- from the complainant to see that no action is taken to demolish the said illegal construction and thereby made an attempt to extort money from the complainant.
5. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The petitioner sought for quashing of the said FIR on the ground that allegations do not attract any offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC, as no money was paid by the defacto complainant to the petitioner. In support of this contention, he relied on two judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Isaac Isanga Musumba v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2013 (0) GLHEL-SC 54972 and another judgment rendered in the case of Dhananjay @ Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 2007 (0) GLHEL-SC 38618, wherein it is held that when the amount is not paid pursuant to the threat given, no offence under Section 384 of IPC is constituted and that criminal proceedings initiated thereon are liable to be quashed.
7. It is contended that, in the present case also, admittedly no amount as demanded was paid and, in fact, there is no threat given to pay the said amount and as such in view of the Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 01 20:39:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15776/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2024 undefined law laid down in aforesaid two judgments offence of extortion punishable under Section 384 of IPC, as defined in Section 3843 of IPC, is not made out. Apart from said contention, in view of compromise that is arrived at by both the parties, it is prayed to quash the FIR.
8. Although offence under Section 384 is a non- compoundable offence, now, it is well settled law that in appropriate cases where offences are non-compoundable offences, the parties can invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to seek permission to compound said offence. The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, held that power of the Court in quashing criminal complaint in exercise of inherent powers is distinct and different from the power of a Criminal Court of compounding offences under Section 320. It is held that cases where the parties have settled the dispute power to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised depending on facts of each case and the Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its impact on society, while quashing the said criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers.
9. The Supreme Court has enumerated certain exceptional cases like murder, rape, dacoity, offences under Prevention of Corruption Act etc. and held that in such cases, inherent power of the Court cannot be exercised to quash the proceedings even when the parties have settled their dispute. Thus, from the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the above reported Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 01 20:39:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15776/2016 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2024 undefined judgment, except in the aforesaid cases like murder, dacoity, rape and cases arising out of Anti-Corruption Laws, in other cases, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code in deserving and appropriate cases to quash criminal proceedings, even in cases relating to offences which are not compoundable.
10. The present case on hand is not falling within the purview of the said exempted cases. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, present request of the petitioners and second respondent to quash the proceedings in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties amicably can be entertained.
11. Learned counsel for the second respondent-defacto complainant submits that as both the petitioner and defacto complainant are members of one society, at the instance of elders and other members of the society, they have decided to put an end to the dispute and square up the matter and complainant has agreed to quash the FIR that is lodged against the petitioner.
12. Therefore, both the petitioners and second respondent are permitted to compound the offence. The compromise is recorded. This petition is allowed quashing the FIR being I- Crime Register No.23 of 2016 registered with Balasinor Police Station, so far as present petitioner is concerned. Direct service is permitted.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J) R.S. MALEK Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 01 20:39:57 IST 2024