Gujarat High Court
Vipul Dahyabhai Gazipara vs State Of Gujarat on 10 December, 2020
Author: A. P. Thaker
Bench: A. P. Thaker
R/CR.MA/13961/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13961 of 2020
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 15463 of 2020
================================================================
VIPUL DAHYABHAI GAZIPARA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI(1077) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MAHESH K POOJARA(5879) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MOXA THAKKER APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
Date : 10/12/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr.Shakeel Qureshi, learned advocate for the petitionera, Mr.Mahesh Poojara, learned advocate for respondent no.2 and Ms.Moxa Thakker, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State through Video Conferencing.
2. In view of the order dated 02.12.2020, the identity proof of the complainant as well as victim is placed on record, which is taken on record.
3. It is reported by the learned APP that the settlement arrived at between the parties is genuine one.
4. By invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioners have sought relief to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R.No. 112100082001060/2020 registered with Sardarnagar Police Station, District: Ahmedabad City dated 29.07.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 363, 365, 323, Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 11 03:17:44 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/13961/2020 ORDER 504, 506(2), 120B etc. of the Indian Penal Code.
5. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the victim wherein she has stated as under:
"I say and submit that I am the original victim and the FIR came to be filed by one Mayur Manubhai Lathiya registered as FIR No. 112100082001060 before the Sarthana Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 149, 363, 365, 323, 504, 506(2) and 102(b) of I.P.C. against the present petitioner and other accused persons.
I say and submit that in the present case no any incident has occurred and my real brother has come to meet me and I am voluntarily accompanied with him and gone to my native place with him and there was no any force or violence done by the accused persons and petitioner was not present at the time of alleged incident and he has been roped in to and I am safely and peacefully residing with my brother and the accused persons have not done any act of threats or kidnapping and I have voluntarily accompanied my brother and there is no question of offence against the any of the accused persons.
I say and submit that dispute is settled with the help of friends, relatives and people of community and now no ill will or grievance exist amongst us further relations between us.
I say and submit that in view of this amicably settlement if Hon'ble Court please to quash the proceedings I have no objection. I am filing this affidavit on my free will and wish without there being any undue threats or pressure "
6. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the complainant wherein he has stated as under:
"I say and submit that I am the original complainant who has filed the FIR registered as FIR No. 112100082001060 before the Sarthana Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 149, 363, 365, 323, 504, 506(2) and 102(b) of I.P.C. against the present petitioner and other accused persons.
I say and submit that I am filing this affidavit as I am aware about the facts and circumstances of the present case and after registration of the FIR, after passage of time dispute between myself and petitioners came to be amicably resolved. I say and submit that dispute is settled with the help of friends, relatives Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 11 03:17:44 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/13961/2020 ORDER and people of community and now no ill will or grievance exist amongst us further relations between us. I am filing this complaint due to some misunderstanding and now the same is already and resolved..
I say and submit that in view of this amicably settlement if Hon'ble Court please to quash the proceedings I have no objection. I am filing this affidavit on my free will and wish without there being any undue threats or pressure "
7. Now, it is submitted by learned advocates for both the parties that the settlement has been arrived at between the parties. The original complainant has stated that they have no objection if the FIR is quashed.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent - State has objected to quash the FIR.
9. 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 distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 11 03:17:44 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/13961/2020 ORDER 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 above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
10. 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.
Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 11 03:17:44 IST 2020R/CR.MA/13961/2020 ORDER Considering the affidavits filed on behalf of the original complainant, 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.
11. Accordingly, the settlement is acknowledged and the FIR being C.R.No. 112100082001060/2020 registered with Sardarnagar Police Station, District: Ahmedabad City dated 29.07.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 363, 365, 323, 504, 506(2), 120B etc. of the Indian Penal Code and all connected proceedings arising therefrom, qua the present petitioners, are quashed. No order as to costs. Direct service through fax, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode is permitted. The necessary writ be sent to the concerned police station.
(DR. A. P. THAKER, J) VR PANCHAL / VARSHA DESAI Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 11 03:17:44 IST 2020