Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 31, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Tadvi Arvindbhai Karsanbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 14 October, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 GUJ 2056

Author: Ashokkumar C. Joshi

Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi

        R/CR.MA/11566/2020                                         JUDGMENT




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 11566 of 2020


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to                  YES
      see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                              YES

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the              NO
      judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of law              NO
      as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
      order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                        TADVI ARVINDBHAI KARSANBHAI
                                    Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR H A SHAH(6071) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. DARSHIT H SHAH(9894) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR D V SHAH(10719) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
    CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

                               Date : 14/10/2020
                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The applicants have filed this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR being CR No. I­ 11823014200173 of 2020 registered with Kevadiya Police Station, District - Narmada for the offences Page 1 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT punishable under Sections 392, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. H. A. Shah for the applicants, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the Respondent - State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. D.V. Shah for the Respondent No. 2 - original complainant through video conference.

2.1 This application is filed with following prayers which read as under:

"(b) That the FIR Being C.R. No. I­ 11823014200173/2020 registered with Kevadiya Police Station and all consequent and subsequent proceedings arising there from may kindly be quashed and set aside qua applicantss.
(c) During the admission, pendency and final disposal of this application, the proceedings and further proceedings arising out of the FIR Being C.R. No. I­ 11823014200173/2020 registered with Kevadiya Police Station may kindly be stayed qua all applicantss.

OR

(d) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct respondent to not to take any coercive steps against the present applicantss during the admission, pendency and final disposal of this application."

Factual Matrix of the Case:

3. It is stated in the FIR that on 07.07.2020 the complainant with his friend began journey from Dabhoi to Karoli on motorcycle to visit his friend residing there, at the beginning Page 2 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT of the said journey both complainant and his friend drank Indian Liquor (Desi Daru) and started going from dabhoi to kevadiya and thereafter reached Karoli at 10 O' clock in the morning. It is further stated in the complainant that to reach back home (Dabhoi) complainant and his friend left Karoli at 12.00 AM in night and in midway both of them came to be apprehended by Police Officers at 01.00 AM, they asked the complainant and his friend about their late visit to kevadiya and they informed accordingly that they were going back to their house from Karoli to Dabhoi. A police car consist of three police officials took them and roamed around in Kevadiya for half an hour, their bike was taken by one of the Policeman. The said policeman took the complainant to a distant land parked their jeep and driver of the jeep asked the complainant and their friend to give whatever money they had with him. The complainant and his friend gave Rs. 850/­ in cash to the said Police Officials, the driver further took the mobile of the complainant and gave it back to the complainant with keys to their motorcycle but the driver had taken memory card (worth Rs. 100/­) out of the mobile and then released them from their custody. On the journey back home the complainant and his friend came to be stopped by Tilakvada Police and were found to be in drunken condition, the said Police Station filled two complaints against the complainant. It is therefore, alleged in the FIR that the three Police Officials robbed the complainant and his friend worth of Rs. 950/­ forcefully. Hence, the impugned FIR is lodged.

Page 3 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020 
   R/CR.MA/11566/2020                                   JUDGMENT



  Submission of the parties:

4. Learned Advocate       for the applicants     has vehemently

submitted that as per the judgment deliver by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM M­ 31765 of 2012 decided on 01.05.2013, in case of Vinod @ Boda and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another and in CRM M­ 6597 of 2018 in case of Karamjeet Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2018 SCC Online P&H 6357 and argued that in such identical matters it was decided and held that even if the accused is Public Servant then also it appears that he has not acted in official capacity but it appears that in view of the judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court , the present applicant is empowered to enter in the settlement, therefore discretion may be exercised by this Hon'ble Court and the Application may be allowed and FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed.

4.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon four different authorities of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, viz. (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narender Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, (ii) Iqbal Dawood Hala Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2013 (0) AIJEL­HC 229756, (iii) a judgment in case of Janki Chintan Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL­HC 231973 and

(iv) Arun Singh And Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Page 4 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT Through Its Secretary And Another, reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 736.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed this application and stated that offence is against the society, therefore, benefit of settlement may not be allowed, hence this application deserves to be disallowed.

6. Having regard to the arguments advanced by both the sides, before I invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code [hereinafter referred to as "Code"], I would like to refer to Section 482 of the Code which is as under:

"482 Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

7. Upon plain reading of the section, it starts with the word "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit....". It means this Court has extraordinary powers where there is no limit under the provisions to exercise for the same. Further, it states "affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code". It means, again if the powers are exercised under this provision, it shall not effect to the inherent powers of the High Court. Further, legislation has used the word "May". Therefore, it is purely discretionary power. Further, it reads with the words "to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice". It means I have to Page 5 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT examine (i) to prevent the abuse of process of the Court; and

(ii) to secure ends of justice. Both the objectives are also considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra sing. v. State of Pubjab [2014 (6) SCC 466].

10.1 It is true that nowhere in the Code, there is definition of abuse of process of the court, nowhere it is discussed. Simultaneously, explanation for securing the ends of justice is also not defined and therefore, every case has different facts and circumstances, but simultaneously, to arrive at true conclusion or to exercise the extraordinary powers, I have to rely on landmark decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, for exercising powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.

[A] Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Parbhatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat [2017 (9) SCC 641], following 10 principles are laid down, which are as under:­ "1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inherent in the High Court.

2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non­compoundable.

Page 6 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020

R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT

3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised;

(a) to secure the ends of justice.

(b) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

6. In the exercise of the power under section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

Page 7 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020

R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT

9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice;

10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well­being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

[B] Further, in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [AIR 1992 SC 604], following 7 categories of cases had been laid down, which are as under:­ "1. Where the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the FIR and other materials, if any, acompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non­cognizable Page 8 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer, unless a Magistrate has issued an order for the same, as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR are absurd to the extent that no prudent man can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act, under which a criminal proceeding is instituted, with regard to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and / or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide intention 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 due to private and / or personal grudge."

[C] Further, in case of R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 260], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a criminal proceedings against a person can be quashed if the case belongs to any one of the following classes:

"1. Where there is a legal bar against institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings.
2. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence, even if taken at face value and in their entirety.
3. Where the allegations made constitute an offence, but there is no evidence which can prove them."
Page 9 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020
R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT
7. This Court has also taken into consideration the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of (1) Vinod @ Boda and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, in CRM M­ 31765 of 2012, decided on 01.05.2013, which reads as under:
"The refusal to invoke power under Section 320 CrPC, however, does not debar the High Court from restoring to its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC and pass an appropriate order so as to secure the ends of justice.
The doubt has been expressed by the learned Single Judge whether in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise entered between the parties where the offence is against the public servant can be quashed or not by the High Court is the issued before us.
The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court with a view to prevent the abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice, is wide enough to include it power to quash the proceedings in relation to the non­compoundable offences including the ones involved in the present case notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 CrPC. Such a power, in our considered view, is exercisable by the High Court in all those circumstances where the conclusion of trial would ultimately result into futility.
In the present case, merely because the complainant was working as a teacher and injuries were caused to him while he was on duty at School, learned Single Judge has treated it to be a case of an offence against the 'society' observing that public servant has been prohibited from performing his duties, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Whereas, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the dispute was prima facie between the parties in their individual and private capacity. Therefore, even on merits, the present is a fit where the ends of justice demand quashing of proceedings as the dispute has been settled amicably and this would bring harmony between the parties."

(2) in case of Karamjeet Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2018 SCC Online P&H 6357, which reads as Page 10 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT under:

"Although, the present FIR involves the offence punishable under Sections 186 and 353 of IPC for obstructing the public servant in performance of their duty and therefore, the learned State counsel has submitted that this could not be quashed, not being purely private matter of the official concerned. However, the argument of learned State counsel is not sustainable in law that the public servant does not have any independent capacity other than the personality of a public servant. Therefore, when the public servant in his personal capacity is seeking quashing of the FIR then the same cannot be denied simply because the offences involved obstruction in performance of duty by a public servant. In this regard, this Court finds support from the Division Bench judgment of this Court referred in Vinod @ Boda and others Versus State of Haryana and another ­2017(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 571. Hence, even the offence under Sections 186, 353 and 332 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of compromise."

In this authority offence under Section 332 of the IPC was registered, wherein, case of applicant is better footing, even otherwise offence neither under Section 332 nor under Section 186 of IPC is registered. Hence, when applicant has not acted in official capacity and dispute is settled, this is a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

8. Learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 has placed on record Statement of Affidavit sworn by the Respondent No. 2 ­ original complainant dated 13.07.2020. The Affidavit reads thus:

"I, Popatbhai Vestabhai Yadav, Aged: 25 Years, Gender: Male,, Residing at Dabhoi Sonibago, Ta. Dabhoi, Dis. Vadodara, Original Residing At Arthuna, Ta. Gadi, Dis. Basvada (Rajesthan) do solomenly affirm that,
1. I state and submit that I have filled Aforesaid Fir Being C.R. No. I - 11823014200173 /2020 came to be registered with Kevadiya Police Station for the offences under Sections 392, 506(1), 114 of the Indian Penal Code on 08.07.2020.
Page 11 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020
R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT
2. I say and submit that the said complaint was filled by me, wherein it has been stated by me that I was in drunken condition and for which separate complaint is also being filled by the concerned Police station.
3. I say and submit that the above fact is very much stated in the impugned Fir and therefore at that particular time when the complaint was being written or signed, I was not in proper mental condition to file the FIR and the said complaint was shown to me and I signed it, I didn't know what complaint was filled or against whom it was filled or what was contained or written in the FIR.
4. I say that as I have read the Fir it has come to my knowledge that the said FIR is filled against the above Police Officials alleging that the said officers looted A memory card worth of Rs. 100/­ and cash of Rs. 850/­ from me. I say and submit that the said fact is untrue and no such incident has ever occurred, I am having my memory card stated in the impugned FIR.
5. I state and submit that Pursuant to the above facts and as per the settlement arrived at between both the parties, it decided that the matter be settled and said FIR be quashed or any other proceedings arising out of the said incident will be withdrawn by me or will be consented by me to be quashed.
6. I state and submit that present Applicant's has filed the present Criminal Misc. Application to quash and set aside the Impugned FIR And Any Consequential Proceedings arises out therewith.
7. I State and submits that all the applicants and Respondent No. 2 have Settled their Dispute outside the Court amicably and any proceedings of the said FIR will be nothing but futile exercise.
8. I therefore state and submits that I have no objection to quash and set aside the FIR Being C.R. No. I­ 11823014200173/2020 came to be registered with Kevadiya Police Station and any consequential further proceedings arising out of it.
Solemnly affirmed at Vadodara on this 13 day of July, 2020."

9. Learned Advocate for the applicant and learned advocate for the Page 12 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT original complainant have submitted that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement by way of affidavit which is produced on record. Therefore, they have submitted that the Application may be allowed and the FIR may be quashed.

10. This Court has considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and also referred to authorities submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court (i) in case of Narender Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has observed as under:

"8. We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognized. The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary powers to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non­serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of the offences enumerated in section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. Insofar as serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of theses powers were described by this Court in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana which has been followed and further explained/elaborated in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter."
Page 13 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020
R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT
12.Thereafter, the Court summed up the legal position in the following words:
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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 plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guidelines 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and 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 victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 flavor stand on a 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 Page 14 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case 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 or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

The Court in Gian Singh case was categorical that in respect of serious offences or other offences of mental depravity or offence of merely decoity under special statute, like the prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servant while working in that capacity. The mere settlement between the parties would not be a ground to quash the proceedings by the High Court and inasmuch as settlement of such henious crime cannot have imprimatur of the Court."

(ii) The Coordinate Bench has passed a judgment in case of Iqbal Dawood Hala Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2013 (0) AIJEL­HC 229756, held as under:

Page 15 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020

R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973­S.482­Indian Penal Code, 1860­S.504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 326 - Arms Act, 1959 - S.25(1)(c)­ Bombay Police Act, 1951­S.135(1)­quashing of the criminal complaint­ dispute between the parties is of private and personal nature - complainant has admitted that the complainant and original accused i.e. the applicantss have voluntarily settled the dispute - complainant - respondent No.2 has also admitted that he does not want to prosecute the complaint further qua the applicantss - held no fruitful purpose will not be served in continuing the prosecution of the complaint

- fit case for exercising powers u/s. 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of the process of Court - criminal complaint quashed - application allowed."

(iii) The Coordinate Bench has passed a judgment in case of Janki Chintan Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL­HC 231973, held as under:

"Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 120B, 307, 326 - Arms Act, 1959 - 25(1)(b), 25(1)(a) - quashing of complaint
- applicants was not named as an accused in the complaint but was shown as witness - however later on investigating officer joined him as an accused - compromise and settlement between the parties - both the sides present before the Court - complainant filed an affidavit in support of the applicants/accused and confirmed about the settlement - denial of allegation by the complainant against the applicants
- no objection to the complainant if complaint is quashed qua applicants only - case of narinder Singh (Supra) referred and relied upon - fit case to exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code - complaint qua applicants quashed - application allowed."

(iv) The Coordinate Bench has passed a judgment in case of Kalubhai Virabhai Thakor (Mauluna) v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (0) AIJEL­HC 240101 Page 16 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1399 of 2019) has observed as under:

"27.At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173,Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. Sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case."

12. Upon all such authorities, which have been submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants, authorities nos. (i) in case of Narender Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and Another (ii) Iqbal Dawood Hala Vs. State of Gujarat and (iii) Janki Chintan Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and (iv) Kalubhai Virabhai Thakor Page 17 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT (Mauluna) v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (0) AIJEL­HC 240101, are fully applicable to the present case. Learned advocate also place reliance upon the judgments deliver by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM M­ 31765 of 2012 in case of Vinod @ Boda and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another and in CRM M­ 6597 of 2018 in case of Karamjeet Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and another are also applicable to the present case. In addition to that this Court has also referred to the latest order passed by the co­ordinate Bench in case of Kalubhai Virabhai Thakor (Mauluna) v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (0) AIJEL­HC 240101 and therefore this Court is of the view that when the parties have amicably settled the disputes in such offences, there is no requirement of trial and same would be against the ends of justice. Therefore, FIR is required to be quashed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

13. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and the authorities cited by the learned advocate for the applicants, it transpires that the offence is registered upon the applicantss Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The punishment for the offences under Section 392 is upto ten years and under Section 506(1) the punishment is upto two years.

14. This Court has referred to the land mark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2017 SCC online SC 1189 and in case of State of Page 18 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT Madhyapradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688. Normally, this Court would not entertain the quashing petition in serious offences like offences under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC. But, in the present case offfences which are registered upon the applicants are less serious in nature which is discussed earlier.

15. Pursuant to FIR, it appears that the dispute is settled and therefore, in view of the fact that the dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 - original complainant have been amicably settled, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and thereby peace is restored, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. Moreover, any further continuation of proceedings in this matter would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it would be expedient to quash the subject­ FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the submission made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, this Court is inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicants vested under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. Therefore, the present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. FIR being CR No. No. I­ 11823014200173 of 2020 registered with Kevadiya Police Station, District - Narmada for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside.

Page 19 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020

R/CR.MA/11566/2020 JUDGMENT

17. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court and concerned Police Station through e­mail / fax. Direct service through E­mail / Fax or by any other electronic mode is permitted.

(DR. ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI,J) Prk created by Radhika Page 20 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 00:59:39 IST 2020