Gujarat High Court
Safi Hasan Chauhan & 19 vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 2 March, 2015
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
R/SCR.A/1205/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1205 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
=============================================
SAFI HASAN CHAUHAN & 19....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR CHETAN B RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 20
MS HB PUNANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RUTURAJ NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No.3
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 02/03/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned APP Ms. Punani waives service of notice of rule for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Shri Ruturaj Nanavati waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.3.
Page 1 of 6R/SCR.A/1205/2015 JUDGMENT
2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
3. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R.No.I 157/2014 registered with Una Police Station and the proceeding arising out of the said FIR which is pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Una.
4. Heard learned advocate Shri Chetan B. Raval for the petitioners, Learned APP Ms. Punani for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Shri Ruturaj Nanavati for respondent No.3.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the FIR being C.R.No.I157/2014 came to be registered with Una Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 504, 427, 452, 506(2) of the IPC and u/s. 25(1) of the Arms Act read with Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. Learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that cross FIR is also filed on behalf of the petitioners' side against the opponent group of respondent No.3. The said FIR came to be registerd before the same Police Station which is registered as C.R.No.I160/2014. Learned advocate submitted that after the registration of the said FIR, now the matter is amicably settled out of the Court between the parties i.e. respondent No.3 and with the injured witnesses. The respondent No.3 as well as the injured witnesses have filed the affidavits before this Court. The said affidavits are produced along with the petition. Relying upon the said affidavits learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that when the matter is settled out of the Court with the original complainant and the injured witnesses, no useful purpose would be served in continuing present proceedings Page 2 of 6 R/SCR.A/1205/2015 JUDGMENT against the petitioners. Learned advocate for the petitioners has also relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav and Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr., reported in AIR 2014 SC 3055 as well as the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in 2014(6) SCC 466 and Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31. Learned advocate for the petitioners further relied upon the order passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.287 of 2015 passed on 19.01.2015 and submitted that the impugned FIR and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto be quashed and set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned advocate Shri Ruturaj Nanavati appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 has submitted that the matter is settled out the Court and if the impugned FIR is quashed and set aside, the respondent No.3 as well as the injured witnesses have no objection.
7. Learned APP Ms. Punani has also submitted that when the matter is settled out of the Court, this Court may pass an appropriate order though the alleged offences are serious in nature.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and having gone through the documents produced on record and the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the petitioners, I am of the view that respondent No.3 - original complainant and the witnesses have voluntarily arrived at the settlement with the petitioners for which the affidavit is filed by the complainant. In the said affidavit, respondent No.3 original complainant stated thus:
"4. I, (Complainant) SAJID MAHAMAD HUSEN BLOCH, Aged Page 3 of 6 R/SCR.A/1205/2015 JUDGMENT about - 26, Occu. Business, Resident of: Cot area, Una, District:
Gir Somnath, I Complainant herein file this affidavit and contending that, the Complainant is in fact, on account of serious misunderstanding between the parties registered the complaint before the Una Police Station as I.C.R.No.157/2014 but now as in fact, the entire dispute is amicably resolved and it is submitted that dispute was not only amicably resolved but it is peacefully put to end also because all are residing at same area. It is submitted that, also with the consent of the both the sides. As on account of intervention of relatives and friends who have assisted to resolved dispute peacefully. I also earnestly and humbly urged the Honourable Court to terminate the prosecution and proceedings pending against the present petitioner, to maintain peace among the parties... As stated above since there is no grievance amongst any of the parties of complaint registered before the Una Police Station, as I.C.R.No.157 of 2014, and FIR is pending before the J.M.F.C. at Una."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav (Supra) observed in para 4 to 7 as under:
"4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code which are noncompoundable. Needless to say that offences which are noncompoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[1]). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are noncompoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, Page 4 of 6 R/SCR.A/1205/2015 JUDGMENT therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.
5. In Gian Singh this Court has observed that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the 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. Needless to say that the above observations are applicable to this Court also.
6. Learned counsel for the parties have requested this Court that the impugned order be set aside as the High Court has not noticed the correct position in law in regard to quashing of criminal proceedings when there is a compromise. Affidavit has been filed in this Court by complainant Anil Mandal, who is respondent No. 2 herein. In the affidavit he has stated that a compromise petition has been filed in the lower court. It is further stated that he and the appellants are neighbours, that there is harmonious relationship between the two sides and that they are living peacefully. He has further stated that he does not want to contest the present appeal and he has no grievance against the appellants. Learned counsel for the parties have confirmed that the disputes between the parties are settled; that parties are abiding by the compromise deed and living peacefully. They have urged that in the circumstances pending proceedings be quashed. State of Jharkhand has further filed an affidavit opposing the compromise. The affidavit does not persuade us to reject the prayer made by the appellant and the second respondent for quashing of the proceedings.
7. In view of the compromise and in view of the legal position which we have discussed hereinabove, we set aside the impugned Page 5 of 6 R/SCR.A/1205/2015 JUDGMENT order dated 4/7/2012 and quash the proceedings in S.C.No.9/05 pending on the file of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda. The appeal is disposed of."
10. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in continuation of the criminal proceedings in the present case and it will be an exercise in futility. Justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored. In the result, the petition is allowed. The FIR being C.R.No.I 157/2014, registered with Una Police Station, is ordered to be quashed. Consequently, all further proceedings pursuant to the said FIR shall stand terminated. Rule is made absolute.
11. The Registry to accept the Vakalatnama of Shri Ruturaj Nanavati, who is appearing for respondent No.3 - original complainant.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Jani Page 6 of 6