Gujarat High Court
Amardeepsinh Mahavirsinh Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat on 6 November, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 GUJ 941
Author: A. P. Thaker
Bench: A. P. Thaker
R/CR.MA/16166/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16166 of 2020
=====================================================
AMARDEEPSINH MAHAVIRSINH VAGHELA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR ARPIT A KAPADIA(3974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MOXA THAKKER APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
SUDHIR M KHANNA(7963) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
Date : 06/11/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Kapadia, learned advocate for the applicant, Ms. Thakker, learned APP for the respondent - State and Mr.Khanna, learned advocate for respondent no.2 through video conferencing.
2. At the request of learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. By invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the applicant has sought relief to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R.No. 11993003200026 of 2020 registered with Anjar Police Station, District: Kachchh dated 08.01.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) etc. of the Indian Penal Code.
4. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the complainant Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 05:22:05 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/16166/2020 ORDER wherein she has stated in paras-3 to 9 as under:
"3. I say and submit that I am the first informant of the impugned FIR registered as being C.R.No. 11993003200026 of 2020 registered with Anjar Police Station, District: Kachchh dated 08.01.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the IPC. The present applicant is arraigned as an accused no.2 in connection with the said FIR.
4. I say and submit that I do not want to proceed further with the impugn FIR as the matter is amicably resolved between the parties.
5. I say and submit that I have no objection, if the impugn FIR is quashed and set aside and I hereby unequivocally give my consent for quashing of the impugn FIR registered as being C.R.No. 11993003200026 of 2020 registered with Anjar Police Station, District: Kachchh dated 08.01.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the IPC.
6. It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the matter is amicably settled between the applicant and the respondent. It is submitted that the present applicant has filed Regular Civil Suit No.67/2020 in the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anjar for the declaration and permanent injunction with respect to subject property against the deponent and other. It is submitted that by filing the purshis, said suit came to be withdrawn by the applicant. It is submitted that Ld 2 nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anjar vide order dated 26/09/2020 allowed the applicant to withdraw said suit. Copy of plaint of Regular Civil Suit No.67/2020 and order dated 26/09/2020 passed by Ld 2 nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anjar are attached at Page 31 to 35 of the petition.
7. It is most humbly submitted that the presetn applicant had also reversed the sale deed with respect to land in question by executing a Registered cancellation document registered before the sub registrar, Anjar vide document registration no. 7083/2020 dated 08/10/2020. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE R1 is the copy of the Registered cancellation document registered before the sub registrar Anjar vide document registration no. 7083/2020 dated 08.12.2020.
8. It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the matter is amicably resolved between the parties and I do not intend to proceed further with criminal prosecution and I have no objection Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 05:22:05 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/16166/2020 ORDER if the impugn FIR is quashed.
9. I hereby expressly state and submit that I am giving my consent at my free volition and without any fear or coercion or compulsion. I am in my full sense of consciousness."
5. Now, it is submitted by learned advocates for both the parties as well as the original complainant and victim, who have joined through Video Conferencing that there is settlement arrived at between the parties. The original complainant and the victim have stated that they have no objection if the FIR is quashed.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent - State has objected to quash the FIR.
7. In the case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in para 61, laid-down the following proposition of law while distinguishing Section 482 from Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Hon'ble Apex provided the illustrative category of cases suitable for settlement and it was observed that heinous crimes like robbery, dacoity and rape etc. cannot be settled and suitability of the cases for settlement will depend upon the facts of each individual case. It was held that even the cases which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can be settled under Section 482 of the Code, if the High Court finds the element of settlement. Para 61 reads 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 Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 05:22:05 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/16166/2020 ORDER 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 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 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 Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 05:22:05 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/16166/2020 ORDER above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
8. Considering the ratio as above, submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cannot be accepted. Mere invocation of the provisions for serious offences would not necessarily lead to inference of commission of such offences. Considering the affidavits filed on behalf of the original complainant and the victim, it appears that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings and if continued, it would be nothing but a futile exercise.
9. Therefore, in view of the affidavit filed by the complainant, the present application is allowed. The impugned First Information Report being C.R.No. 11993003200026 of 2020 registered with Anjar Police Station, District: Kachchh dated 08.01.2020 for offences alleged therein and all other consequential proceedings thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the present applicant. The application stands disposed of.
10. The necessary writ be sent to the concerned police station.
(DR. A. P. THAKER, J) VR PANCHAL / DIPTI PATEL Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 05:22:05 IST 2020