Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2003 (GUJ)

Bhaumikbhai Aasitbhai Desai v. State of Gujarat

2016-09-07

SONIA GOKANI

body2016
ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J. Applicant is before this Court seeking quashment of the complaint on the ground of their amicable settlement. The petitioner is one of the accused in a complaint being C.R No. I-139 of 2012 registered with Ellisbridge police station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The complaint culminated into Criminal Case No. 463 of 2012. The trial Court acquitted accused No. 2 Vibha Desai, wife of the present applicant in the said case, vide order dated 18.3.2016 3. The complainant is before this Court. She has filed her affidavit stating therein that she has no grievance left if the complaint is quashed. Learned advocate Mr. Harsh Gajjar appearing for the applicant has confirmed that there are no other victims in this case accept the present complainant. The complainant has confirmed of having received the entire amount of Rs. 22 lakhs by cash. She also has stated before the Court that due to intervention of elder members and friends, the settlement has been arrived at amicably. 4. This Court notices that the applicant has not participated so far in the criminal proceedings before the trial Court. However, the wife of the petitioner also has been acquitted on the ground of compromise between the parties. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 has confirmed that there are no other victims, and therefore, this Court has acceded to the request of quashment. It is to be noted from the record that on account of compromise arrived at by and between the parties, the matter has resulted into acquittal. It is also to be noted that the complainant has already received the entire sum with interest, and therefore, also no purpose is likely to be served continuing the criminal prosecution. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , permitted the compromise to bring the lasting peace in relationships and held and observed as under:- “57. 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 Section 320 of the Code. 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 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 victim's 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 pre-dominatingly 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 questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed quashing the complaint being C.R No. I-139 of 2012 registered with Ellisbridge police station, Ahmedabad with all consequential proceedings. 7. Bearing in mind the overall circumstances and the status of the present petitioner before the trial Court, it will be in the fitness of things to direct him to present this order before the concerned Court for the Court to implement the order. He shall also pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), which shall be deposited with the High Court Legal Services committee. Application is disposed of accordingly. 8. Direct service is permitted.