R/CR.MA/14771/2016 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 14771 of 2016 ========================================================== MAYUR BHADRESHBHAI BHATT & 2....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s) ========================================================== Appearance: MR VISHWAS S DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 3 MR RONAK RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 28/06/2016 ORAL ORDER
1. Applicants are seeking quashment of the First Information Report being C.R.No.I62 of 2016 registered before Talod police station for the offences punishable under sections 323, 114, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. During the pendency of the petition, parties have chosen to settle the disputes. Respondent No.2 is joining her husband. She is present before the Court.
On inquiry, she confirms of having volunteered to settle the disputes amicably. As chronology of events Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Tue Jul 05 00:33:19 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/14771/2016 ORDER has led to happily end the disputes between the parties, no purpose is going to be served continuing the litigation, particularly the criminal prosecution.
Let the complaint be quashed as provided in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58.
3. Mr.Chirak Parekh, learned advocate urges that he may be permitted to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No.2complainant during the course of the day. Permission as prayed for is granted.
4. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and the fact that it is a matrimonial dispute and the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, especially when the respondent No.2 has chosen to reside with the family of the applicant, no cause survives and, therefore, it would be desirable to quash the first information report in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in AIR 2012 SC (Supp.) 838 as well as a decision in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, reported in 2013 (3) GLR Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Tue Jul 05 00:33:19 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/14771/2016 ORDER 1875, whereby it is held that it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes 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 Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Tue Jul 05 00:33:19 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/14771/2016 ORDER 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 wellbeing 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 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."
Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Tue Jul 05 00:33:19 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/14771/2016 ORDER
5. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra), the present application succeeds and the same is, accordingly, allowed in view of an amicable settlement arrived at by and between the parties. The first information report being C.R.No.I62 of 2016 registered before Talod police station. All consequential proceedings arising from the First Information Report are also quashed and set aside.
Direct Service is permitted.
(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) SUDHIR Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Tue Jul 05 00:33:19 IST 2016