Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors vs Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr on 15 March, 2013
The Indian Penal Code
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012

Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Gujarat High Court
Mayur Bhadreshbhai Bhatt & 2 vs State Of Gujarat & on 28 June, 2016
                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