Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 622 (GUJ)

Mohsin Munaf Juneja v. State of Gujarat

2020-07-23

ASHUTOSH J.SHASTRI

body2020
ORDER : 1. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of seeking following reliefs : “A. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this Criminal Misc. Application. B. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this present Criminal Misc. Application by quashing and setting aside the FIR filed at Annexure-A as CR No.-A 11208035200184 of 2020 before the Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 325, 427, 504, 506 (2) and Sec. 114 of IPC and Sec. 135(1) of G.P. Act and also be pleased to quash further proceedings arising out of the same in the interest of justice. C. Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may pleased to grant stay as to further proceedings of FIR filed by respondent No.2 as CR No. II 3454 of 2018 Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad in the interest of justice. D. Grant such other and further relief as deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the applicants is that one complaint came to be lodged by Sagar Dharmendrabhai Vyas, inter alia, stating that he is residing at the address shown in the complaint and doing the job. On 30.3.2020, at about 9.00 p.m. when the complainant and his brother went towards Khodiya Dairy and when they reached near by Balaji Super Market, the accused picked up the quarrel and beaten up the complainant which has resulted into filing of FIR. 3. During the passage of time, according to the learned advocate for the applicants, the issue is resolved between the parties with the help of family members and relatives, since the complainant has filed the complaint on account of misunderstanding. As a result of this, amicable settlement took place which has been confirmed by the complainant by way of affidavit reflecting on page-4 of the application compilation. Hence, a request is made to grant the relief as prayed for in the application. 4. As against this, Mr.Mahesh Pujara, learned advocate for the complainant, has also specifically confirmed the fact of complainant and has specifically stated on instruction that there is no cause of grievance at all with the accused persons. Hence, a request is made to set aside the complaint. 5. 4. As against this, Mr.Mahesh Pujara, learned advocate for the complainant, has also specifically confirmed the fact of complainant and has specifically stated on instruction that there is no cause of grievance at all with the accused persons. Hence, a request is made to set aside the complaint. 5. Additionally, it has been pointed out by learned advocate for the complainant that Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC and the alleged sections are compoundable and, therefore, the relief if to be granted in favour of the applicant, there is no objection at all. 6. As against this, the learned APP has submitted that it appears clearly from the record that complainant as well as the accused persons have resolved the dispute amicably and there is no point now in dragging the issue any further and apart from that, the offences which are alleged appears to be compoundable and the proposition is to that extent that even a non-compoundable offence, if the settlement is genuinely coming out, the Courts have taken the view. Hence, the matter is left it to the discretion of the Court. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, it appears that the complainant has already filed a specific affidavit that on account of misconception, the complaint has been filed and he is no longer interested in prosecuting the matter any further. The relevant extract contained in the affidavit is reproduced hereinafter : “It is submitted that I am the Ori. Complainant who has filed the FIR registered as CR NO A 11208035200184 of 2020 before Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot for the offence punishable under sec. 323,325,427,504,506(2)and sec 114 of ILP.C and after registration of the above referred complaint at present the dispute between us is amicably resolved with the help of friends and relatives and the complaint filed by me is because of some misunderstanding and misconception which is already been shorted out between us with the help of friend and relatives and therefore now there is no ill will or grievance remain between us and I do not received any injury and all dispute is amicably resolved between us and therefore 1 do not want to continue with my complaint further and therefore I earnestly urge this Hon'ble court to terminate the proceeding as prayed by petitioner in the interest of justice.” 8. Additionally, the Court has also taken into consideration the relevant observations contained in the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in CR.MA No.8676 of 2020, decided on 29.6.2020, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has taken into consideration the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , wherein it has been observed that even in a non-compoundable offence of Section 326 of IPC also. The relevant extract of the said decision is reproduced hereinafter : 8. It is true that section 326 IPC is non-compoundable and that the other sections could be compounded with the permission of the Court. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 , the present matter would fall under the criteria laid down therein. In paragraph-61 of the said judgment, it has been observed thus: 61. 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 9. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , the Apex Court had the occasion to consider the issue as to whether an FIR lodged for the 2 offences punishable under sections 307 and 34 IPC could be quashed on the basis of the settlement between the parties. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , the Apex Court had the occasion to consider the issue as to whether an FIR lodged for the 2 offences punishable under sections 307 and 34 IPC could be quashed on the basis of the settlement between the parties. While considering the said issue, the Apex Court observed in para-13 thus: 13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under : (i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; (ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; (iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; (iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; (v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” 9. In view of aforesaid circumstance, now when undisputedly, a specific affidavit has come on record about terms of settlement, it appears to this Court that continuance of the proceedings would lead to wastage of judicial time and would aimed at futility and as such, a case is made out for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present application deserves to be allowed. 10. In the result of this, the application is allowed. The impugned first information report bearing C.R.No. CR No.-A 11208035200184 of 2020 before the Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot and the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. 11. 10. In the result of this, the application is allowed. The impugned first information report bearing C.R.No. CR No.-A 11208035200184 of 2020 before the Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot and the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. 11. The Registry is directed to communicate this order through FAX and/or E-mail to the concerned authority, forthwith.