Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1272 (GUJ)

Rajendakumar Jamnalal Mishra v. State of Gujarat

2015-12-10

RAJESH H.SHUKLA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. Present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order rendered in Special Case No. 17 of 2004 by the learned Special Judge & Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Dahod dated 20.01.2006 recording conviction of the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 and 504 of the IPC as well as for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 imposing sentence as stated in detail in the impugned judgment and order. 2. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follow: "The complainant and the accused were serving in the same office and when the complainant was not present, the accused has misrepresented the superior and thereafter the superior is said to have scolded the complainant, resulting in some kind of quarrel, which led to the aforesaid complaint, which has culminated in to the aforesaid Special Case No. 17 of 2004." 3. The learned Special Judge, Dahod proceeded with the trial and by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.01.2006 passed in Special Case No.17 of 2004 recorded conviction as stated above. 4. Heard learned Advocate Shri Y.M. Thakkar for the appellant-original accused and learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for the Respondent-State. 5. However, when the matter was called out learned Advocate Shri Y.M. Thakkar for the appellant has placed on record the compromise arrived at between the complainant and the accused alongwith the affidavit of the complainant, which states that he has no objection if the impugned judgment and order recording conviction is quashed and set aside in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between them. 6. However, in view of the aforesaid development regarding compromise and the affidavit of the complainant, it has been requested that the present appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order recorded may be set aside. Learned Advocate Shri Thakkar has stated that now both are serving at difference places and there is no scope of any further ill-feeling. He also referred to and relied upon various judgments including the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri & Z.K. Saiyed, JJ.) of this Court reported in 2009 (0) GLHEL-HC 222845 in the case of Rajabhai Bhavanbhai Rabari v. State of Gujarat. He also referred to and relied upon various judgments including the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri & Z.K. Saiyed, JJ.) of this Court reported in 2009 (0) GLHEL-HC 222845 in the case of Rajabhai Bhavanbhai Rabari v. State of Gujarat. He also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 675 in the case of Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P. 7. Learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for the Respondent-State has some reservation. However, he has submitted that appropriate order may be passed. 8. As could be seen from the background of the facts, both were serving in the same office and over a trivial issue when there was some quarrel, which ultimately led to the complaint for the offences punishable under Atrocity Act, as well as the offences punishable under IPC, which has culminated in to the aforesaid Special Case No.17 of 2004 and the criminal appeal. On the basis of the material and evidence, the Sessions Court has recorded the conviction. 9. However, during this period, it appears that parties have amicably settled and therefore, the affidavit of the complainant is filed alongwith compromise stating that the conviction may be quashed and set aside. 10. Therefore, the moot question is that though the offences punishable under Atrocity Act may not be compoundable, whether such compromise could be considered or not. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors., v. State of Punjab and Anr., while considering this aspect referring to the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab has considered and focused on the aspect of such compromise vis-à-vis the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the underlying policy of sentencing. It has been emphasized that the crime having societal impact and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be considered whether the crime is against an individual rather than against the society at large. It has been further observed that while exercising the inherent powers of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing, what would be the relevant factors. It has been further observed that while exercising the inherent powers of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing, what would be the relevant factors. It has been observed that, "When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis the petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives." 11. A useful reference can also be made to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in another judgment reported in (2014) 10 SCC 285 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak and Anr., referring to the earlier judgment reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 in the case of Narinder Singh V. State of Punjab. Though, in the earlier judgments including the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the observations have been made that while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court must have 'due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime' and 'the societal impact'. 12. In considering the aforesaid settlement, the crime can be said to be against an individual rather than against the society at large. Therefore, since, it has been settled, the interest of justice would be served if the present appeal is allowed by consent of the complainant. 13. In the result, present appeal deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. The impugned judgment and order rendered in Special Case No.17 of 2004 by the Learned Special Judge & Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Dahod dated 20.01.2006 recording conviction of the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 and 504 of the IPC as well as in the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant-accused is hereby acquitted. Bail bond shall stand cancelled.