Gujarat High Court
Nareshbhai Matulal Shah ... vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 10 September, 2015
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/CR.MA/16801/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 16801 of 2015
==========================================================
NARESHBHAI MATULAL SHAH THRO.NITINBHAI NARESHBHAI
SHAH....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGESH LAKHANI, SR.ADVOCATE with MB PARIKH, ADVOCATE for
the Applicant(s) No. 1
MRS HANSA PUNANI, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR SUDHANSU PATEL, ADVOCATE for the RESPONDENT No.2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 10/09/2015
ORAL ORDER
RULE returnable forthwith. Mrs.Punani, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1 - State of Gujarat. Mr.Sudhansu Patel, the learned advocate has entered appearance and waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 - original complainant.
By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the First Information Report being CR I-No.177 of 2015 registered with Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Fri Sep 11 02:36:09 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/16801/2015 ORDER the Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act.
It appears that the first informant is serving as a Watchman in bungalow no.6 of the Abhinav Society situated at Drive-In Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad. The applicant herein is also a resident of the same society, residing in bungalow no.8. On a very trivial issue, an altercation had taken place on the date of the incident, and in the heat of the moment, the applicant herein is alleged to have fired a shot in the air from his licensed revolver. No injury of any nature was caused to the first informant.
It appears that thereafter with the intervention of the other members of the society and the family members of the respective parties, the entire dispute has been resolved. The first informant Shri Mitrasen @ Lalu Ramchan Yadav is personally present in the Court. He is being identified by his learned advocate Mr.Sudhansu Patel. He has also filed an affidavit, inter alia, stating as under :
I, Mitrasen @ Lalu Ramchan Yadav, aged about 21 yrs; Hindu, Adult, Male, residing at Abhinav Society, Drive-in Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, the respondent no.2 herein, the original complainant, do hereby solemnly affirm on oath and states as under :
1. I say that I had filed FIR being C.R. No.I-177 of 2015, under the provisions of Section 307 of IPC, and Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act, against the applicant/accused person at Vastrapur Police Station, on 06/09/2015.
2. I say that the complaint was lodged by me against the applicant because of some misunderstanding. The Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Fri Sep 11 02:36:09 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/16801/2015 ORDER applicant had not fired bullet targeting me. There is no enmity between the applicant and me.
3. I say that now because of the intervention of the reputed persons of the society, the misunderstanding between me and the applicant and his family members has been amicably resolved and is settled and that now, I do not intend to carry further any criminal proceedings, with respect to the said offence. I further say that I have no objection, if the FIR filed by me against the applicant, is quashed and set-aside by the Hon'ble Court and that the applicant may be set at liberty from the custody. I have executed a compromise deed dated 07.09.2015 setting out the same.
4. I say that this compromise had been arrived at without any fear, threat, pressure or enticement and that the same is done out of free wish and will of both the parties.
5. I say that in view of the compromise arrived at between me and the family of the applicant; I have no objection for quashing of the FIR, by this Hon'ble Court."
The terms of the settlement have also been reduced in writing duly signed by the parties, which have been placed on record.
The applicant before me is aged 81 years, suffering from various ailments like cardiac problem, kidney, etc. Taking into consideration the settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the view that no useful purpose would now be served by allowing the police to continue with the investigation.
I am conscious of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak and others, (2014)10 SCC 285, wherein the Supreme Court has taken the view that offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Fri Sep 11 02:36:09 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/16801/2015 ORDER not a private dispute between the parties inter se but it is a crime against the society. The Supreme Court in this case held that the quashment of the proceedings on the basis of a compromise in such a case was not proper. In the said case, it was the State of Madhya Pradesh who had preferred criminal appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh recording such settlement. However, the facts in the said case were very gross. In that case, the injuries inflicted on the complainant were very serious. A sword was used for inflicting the injuries on the forehead, ear, back side of the head as well as on the left arm. The complainant was attacked five times with the sword, out of which two blows were struck on his head.
I may not go into the merit of this case but, prima facie, it appears that Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has no application at all.
In the result, this application is allowed. The First Information Report being CR I-No.177 of 2015 registered with the Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad, is hereby ordered to be quashed. All consequential proceedings pursuant thereto shall also stand terminated. Rule made absolute.
I am told that the applicant is in custody. Since the FIR itself has been quashed, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Direct service is permitted.
Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Fri Sep 11 02:36:09 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/16801/2015 ORDER (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) MOIN Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Fri Sep 11 02:36:09 IST 2015