Gujarat High Court
Vallabhdas Jethabhai Chapadiya & 5 vs State Of Gujarat & on 17 June, 2016
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
R/CR.MA/994/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 994 of 2016
==========================================================
VALLABHDAS JETHABHAI CHAPADIYA & 5....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAV C SANGHAVI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 6
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS CHETNA SHAH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 17/06/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Applicants have approached this Court seeking quashment of the First Information Report ("FIR" for short) being C.R.No.II-204 of 2015 registered with Mahila police station, Rajkot on 31.12.2015 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. FIR is in relation to the matter of cruelty perpetrated by the applicants. Parties have now chosen to settle the disputes amicably. Complainant is present before this Court. She has chosen to part ways. Due to intervention of friends and family Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Thu Jun 23 01:15:56 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/994/2016 ORDER members, parties have chosen to end their matrimonial relations with the decree of divorce by mutual consent before the appropriate Court. She has no objection to the termination of criminal proceedings. Affidavit dated 17.6.2016 has been filed by her to this effect.
3. On inquiring from learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant, she has confirmed the truthfulness of the contents of the affidavit filed by the complainant. This has been further confirmed by the Court. She has received her belongings. However, she has forgone the right of permanent alimony. She has no objection to the complaint being quashed. She also submits that recently petition for divorce by mutual consent is preferred.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. Considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 and the decision in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it would be desirable to quash the first information report in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another( supra), whereby it is held Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Thu Jun 23 01:15:56 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/994/2016 ORDER that it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, enables the High Court to pass such orders. It would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant observations and findings of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra), which read as under :
53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
54. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, 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 peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crimedoer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Thu Jun 23 01:15:56 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/994/2016 ORDER by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement,there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed."
5. Considering the fact that without any duress or coercion, the matrimonial dispute is settled, all concerned in the family are present before this Court. Request to quash the complaint in wake of such voluntary settlement is permitted. FIR being C.R.No.II-204 of 2015 registered with Mahila police station, Rajkot is quashed and set aside with all consequential proceedings arising from the said FIR are also quashed and set aside.
6. Family Court shall expeditiously deal with the petition of decree of divorce on mutual consent. In the event of husband denying the mutual consent, as he is one of the parties, respondent No.1 herein shall be at liberty to revive this complaint.
7. Application is allowed in above terms. Disposed of accordingly.
Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Thu Jun 23 01:15:56 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/994/2016 ORDER Direct service is permitted. (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) SUDHIR Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Thu Jun 23 01:15:56 IST 2016