Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 749 (GUJ)

Sanjay Baldevbhai Kadiya v. State of Gujarat

2013-12-19

R.M.CHHAYA

body2013
JUDGMENT : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Keyur A. Vyas, learned advocate for the applicants, Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State and Ms. Neha Kayastha, learned advocate, for Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned advocate for respondent No. 2-first informant/original complainant. 2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the applicants have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No. II-96 of 2012 registered with Mansa Police Station, District Gandhinagar for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC), Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. At the outset learned advocate for the applicants has pointed out that the parties are related to each other and by intervention of the elder family members, they have amicably resolved the issue. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 has also filed affidavit dated 17.12.2013 before this Court to that effect, which is taken on record. It is therefore submitted that any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. shall amount to harassment to the parties and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the trial would be futile and the same would also amount to abuse of process of law and court and, therefore, it is submitted that in order secure the ends of justice, this Court may quash the impugned F.I.R. as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. 4. Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1, candidly states that as the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, which has arisen out of the matrimonial dispute, this Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Ms. Neha Kayastha, learned advocate for respondent No. 2-first informant/original complainant, reiterates the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court, who is identified by learned advocate for respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that in fact respondent No. 2 has also filed an affidavit dated 17.12.2013 wherein it is clearly averred that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and she has no objection if the impugned F.I.R. is quashed qua the present applicants. 6. It is further submitted that in fact respondent No. 2 has also filed an affidavit dated 17.12.2013 wherein it is clearly averred that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and she has no objection if the impugned F.I.R. is quashed qua the present applicants. 6. Upon inquiry Respondent No. 2-first informant/original complainant, Anamika Anantkumar Kadiya, has stated that she has no objection if appropriate orders of quashing the impugned F.I.R. and the related proceedings are passed, as she has settled the issue with her family members, who are the present applicants-accused herein. Respondent No. 2 has also produced a self-attested photocopy of her election card, which is taken on record. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58 while considering a quashing petition has held as under: “(8) It is not in dispute that matrimonial disputes have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC not only against the husband but also against the relatives of the husband. The question is when such matters are resolved either by the wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or by mutual settlement of other pending disputes for which both the sides approached the High Court and jointly prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the FIR or complaint by the wife under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, whether the prayer can be declined on the sole ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code, it would be impermissible for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint. (9) It is not in dispute that in the case on hand subsequent to the filing of the criminal complaint under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and executed a compromise/settlement. Pursuant thereto, the appellants filed the said compromise before the trial Court with a request to place the same on record and to drop the criminal proceedings against the appellants herein. Pursuant thereto, the appellants filed the said compromise before the trial Court with a request to place the same on record and to drop the criminal proceedings against the appellants herein. It is also not in dispute that in addition to the mutual settlement arrived at by the parties, respondent-wife has also filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the appellants and fully supported the contents of the settlement deed. It is the grievance of the appellants that not only the trial Court rejected such prayer of the parties but also the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code only on the ground that the criminal proceedings relate to the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC which are non-compoundable in nature. (10) The learned counsel for the parties, by drawing our attention to the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , submitted that in an identical circumstance, this Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where the dispute is entirely private and the parties are willing to settle their disputes amicably. (11) It is not in dispute that the facts in B.S. Joshi (supra) are identical and the nature of the offence and the question of law involved are almost similar to the one in hand. (12) After considering the law laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and explaining the decisions rendered in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 , Surendra Nath Mohanty and Another vs. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC 238 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 , this Court held: “8....We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. Considering matrimonial matters, this Court also held: “12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. Considering matrimonial matters, this Court also held: “12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. (13) As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after filing of a complaint in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, the parties, in the instant case, arrived at a mutual settlement and the complainant also has sworn an affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants. That was the position before the trial Court as well as before the High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. A perusal of the impugned order of the High Court shows that because the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties relate to non-compoundable offence, the court proceeded on a wrong premise that it cannot be compounded and dismissed the petition filed under Section 482. A perusal of the petition before the High Court shows that the application filed by the appellants was not for compounding of non-compoundable offences but for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings. (14) The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at. (15) In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings. 8. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as considering the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, 2008 (4) SCC 582 , Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, 2009 (1) GLH 31 as well as in the case of Manoj Sharma vs. State and Others, 2009 (1) GLH 190 , it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned F.I.R. against the applicants-original accused would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants and the trial would be futile and would also amount to abuse of process of law and court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned F.I.R. as well as all other proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. are required to be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No. II-96 of 2012 registered with Mansa Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. are hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Appeal Allowed.