Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 952 (GUJ)

Rajdeepsinh Pratapsinh Jadeja v. State Of Gujarat

2020-12-10

ASHOKKUMAR C.JOSHI

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today 1.1 The Coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Application No. 18287 of 2020 has passed order on 03.12.2020 to tag this matter with Criminal Misc. Application No. 16864 of 2020, therefore, common order has been passed. The affidavits of both the complainants are taken on record and also reproduced. Registry to put copy of this order in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16864 of 2020. The Criminal Misc. Application No. 18287 of 2020 is treated as lead matter. It is made clear that the accused in Criminal Misc. Application No. 18287 of 2020 is complainant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16864 of 2020 and the accused in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16864 of 2020 is complainant in 18287 of 2020. 1.2 The brief facts of the cases are as under: (A) It is alleged in the FIR being I-CR. No. 04 of 2018 that on 10.01.2018, the complainant - Ms. Kanchanben Dipabhai Maheshbhai Navani and her husband went to the Farmhouse Restaurant situated at middle of Aadipur for taking parcel of lunch at about 11.00, at that time in the said restaurant, Mr. Rajdeepsinh Pratapsinh Jadeja belongs to Gandhidham was present along with fifteen other persons. The complainant and accused are known to each other. Earlier the complainant had lodged an FIR against him before eight months. The accused- Rajdeepsinh told his persons to beat the husband of complaint and used abusive language and pushed her aside and taken away mobile phone and forcibly taken the husband of the complainant in their car, therefore FIR came to be lodged and offences punishable under Sections 392, 265, 323, 504, 143 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered. (B) It is alleged in the FIR being I- C.R. No. 05 of 2018 that the complainant - Mr. Rajdeepsinh Pratapsinh Jadeja is the owner of restaurant viz. Farm Villa Restaurant at Aadipur On 10.01.2018, when the complainant reached at Cine Plex Cross Road at about 10.00, he met Mr. Deepak Navani to whom the complainant had given money. (B) It is alleged in the FIR being I- C.R. No. 05 of 2018 that the complainant - Mr. Rajdeepsinh Pratapsinh Jadeja is the owner of restaurant viz. Farm Villa Restaurant at Aadipur On 10.01.2018, when the complainant reached at Cine Plex Cross Road at about 10.00, he met Mr. Deepak Navani to whom the complainant had given money. The Deepak had talked in abusive language in drunk condition to the complainant and when the complainant returned back to his restaurant at 11:00 he came to know from his partner Mr. Dipesh Ganatra that the wife of the complainant i.e. Kanchanben and his mother came at the restaurant at about 10.30 and quarreled with Mr. Dipesh Ganatra and went away. After that when the complainant was at his restaurant with the Partner, Staff members and friend Mr. Rajesh Ganatra, at that time in drunk condition, Mr. Deepak, his wife and his mother along with Eight other persons came in two vehicles and told that I will not give you money back and talked in abusive language and threatened to kill the complainant, therefore, FIR came to be lodged and offences punishable under Section 504, 506(2), 323 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered. 2. The Applicants have filed this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR being C.R. No.-I-04 of 2018 registered with Aadipur Police Station, District:- Kachchh (East), Gandhidham for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 265, 323, 504, 143 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and all further and consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3622 of 2018 pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Gandhidham and C.R. No. I- 05 of 2018 registered with Aadipur Police Station, District:-Kachchh (East) -Gandhidham and Section 504, 506(2) and 143 of the Indian Penal Code and all further and consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3621 of 2018 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Gandhidham. 3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chintan Popat for the Applicants, learned advocate Mr. Ankit Bachani for the respondent No.2 - original complainant and learned APP Mr. L. B. Dabhi for the Respondent - State of Gujarat through video conference. 4. Learned Advocates for the Applicants has submitted that the amicable settlement is arrived at between the original complainant and the Applicants and an Affidavit to that effect is also placed on record. Ankit Bachani for the respondent No.2 - original complainant and learned APP Mr. L. B. Dabhi for the Respondent - State of Gujarat through video conference. 4. Learned Advocates for the Applicants has submitted that the amicable settlement is arrived at between the original complainant and the Applicants and an Affidavit to that effect is also placed on record. It is submitted that the matter is amicably settled and therefore, discretion may be exercised and the Application may be allowed and FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed. 4.1 Learned advocate for the Applicants has placed reliance upon four different authorities of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, viz. (i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narender Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , (ii) Iqbal Dawood Hala Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2013 (0) AIJEL-HC 229756, (iii) a judgment in case of Janki Chintan Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-HC 231973 and (iv) Arun Singh And Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Secretary And Another, reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 736. 5. Learned advocates for the applicants have placed on recored Affidavits sworn by the Original Complainants in both the FIRs. The said affidavits read thus: “I, Kanchanben Dipakbhai Maheshbhai Navani, Age-34 Year adult, Hindu, Female at residing at: Ward No. 5/A, Plot No. 45, Adipur, Dist: Kutchh, do hereby Solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: 1. I am the original complainant of the complaint of CR. No. I- 4 of 2018 with Adipur Police Station, District - EastKutch, for the offence punishable under Sections 392, 265, 323, 504, 143, 354 of I.P.C. and after the investigation charge-sheet came to filed for the offence punishable under Section 354, 323, 506(2) of IPC. 2. xxxx 3. xxxx 4. It is submitted that, the considering the above stated facts and facts narrated in the petition. If this Hon’ble Court quash and set aside the FIR being CR. No. I- 4 of 2018 with Adipur Police Station, District: East- Kutch and further proceedings arising from the same then I have no any objection and I am giving my consent from the same. What is stated herein avvove is true to the best of my knowledge. If this Hon’ble Court quash and set aside the FIR being CR. No. I- 4 of 2018 with Adipur Police Station, District: East- Kutch and further proceedings arising from the same then I have no any objection and I am giving my consent from the same. What is stated herein avvove is true to the best of my knowledge. Solemnly affirm on 16th the September, 2020 at Gandhidham “I, Rajdeepsinh Pratapsinh Jadeja, Aged: 31 yrs, Occupation: Business, Residing at: C-54, Gopalpuri, Gandhidham - Kachchh- present Respondent No. 2- Original Complainant, in Criminal Misc. Application No. of 2020, is filing the present settlement affidavit in the said application, and also do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under; 1. xxx. 2. Xxx. 3. It is humbly stated that presently, during pendency of matter, both applicants and complainant due to mutual understanding and consent, have entered into amicable settlement on their own volition and free will without any coercion. After sorting out disputes and grievances against applicants, I do not want to prosecute any further proceedings in the said F.I.R. and said application, I myself willingly want to withdraw complaint lodged against present applicants. 4. xxx. 5. That I have mutually settled issue with applicants for the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- in Rs. 4,00,000/- and that too, amount to returned as mutually decided in accordance as below 6. What is stated herein above is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and I believe the same to be true. Solemnly affirmed on this 16 Day of September, 2020, Gandhidham” -sd Deponent” 6. Learned APP has opposed the quashing applications and submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of the offence for which the applicants are charged with, present application may not be entertained and award cost and the same be rejected. 7. Learned Advocate for the Applicants and learned advocate for the original complainant have submitted that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement by way of affidavit which is produced on record. Therefore, they have submitted that the Application may be allowed and the FIR may be quashed. 8. This Court has considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and also referred the authorities submitted by the learned advocate for the Applicants. 9. Therefore, they have submitted that the Application may be allowed and the FIR may be quashed. 8. This Court has considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and also referred the authorities submitted by the learned advocate for the Applicants. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (i) in case of Narender Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has observed as under: “8. We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognized. The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary powers to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of the offences enumerated in section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. Insofar as serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of theses powers were described by this Court in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana which has been followed and further explained/elaborated in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter.” 12. Thereafter, the Court summed up the legal position in the following words: “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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 plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guidelines engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Inherent power is of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guidelines 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 victim’s 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 flavor 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 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 question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” The Court in Gian Singh case was categorical that in respect of serious offences or other offences of mental depravity or offence of merely decoity under special statute, like the prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servant while working in that capacity. The mere settlement between the parties would not be a ground to quash the proceedings by the High Court and inasmuch as settlement of such heinous crime cannot have imprimatur of the Court.” (ii) The Coordinate Bench has passed a judgment in case of Iqbal Dawood Hala Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2013 (0) AIJEL-HC 229756, held as under: “Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S.482-Indian Penal Code, 1860-S.504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 326 - Arms Act, 1959 - S.25(1)(c)- Bombay Police Act, 1951- S.135(1)-quashing of the criminal complaint-dispute between the parties is of private and personal nature -complainant has admitted that the complainant and original accused i.e. the Applicants have voluntarily settled the dispute - complainant - respondent No.2 has also admitted that he does not want to prosecute the complaint further qua the Applicants - held no fruitful purpose will not be served in continuing the prosecution of the complaint - fit case for exercising powers u/s. 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of the process of Court - criminal complaint quashed - application allowed.” (iii) The Coordinate Bench has passed a judgment in case of Janki Chintan Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-HC 231973, held as under: “Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 120B, 307, 326 - Arms Act, 1959 - 25(1)(b), 25(1)(a) - quashing of complaint - Applicants was not named as an accused in the complaint but was shown as witness - however later on investigating officer joined him as an accused - compromise and settlement between the parties - both the sides present before the Court - complainant filed an affidavit in support of the Applicants/accused and confirmed about the settlement - denial of allegation by the complainant against the Applicants - no objection to the complainant if complaint is quashed qua Applicants only - case of narinder Singh (Supra) referred and relied upon - fit case to exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code - complaint qua Applicants quashed - application allowed.” (iv) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Arun Singh And Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Secretary And Another, reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 736, has partly allowed the Criminal Appeal wherein quashing applications was allowed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and it was held that when there is abuse of process of law the FIR is required to be quashed. (v) The Coordinate Bench has passed a judgment in case of Kalubhai Virabhai Thakor (Mauluna) v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC 240101 (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1399 of 2019) has observed as under: “27.At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. Sustained by the victim. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. Sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case.” 10. Upon all such authorities, which have been submitted by the learned advocate for the Applicants, authorities nos. (i) in case of Narender Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and Another (ii) Iqbal Dawood Hala Vs. State of Gujarat and (iii) Janki Chintan Shah Vs. State of Gujarat are fully applicable to the present case. In addition to that this Court has also referred to the latest order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in case of Kalubhai Virabhai Thakor (Mauluna) v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC 240101 and therefore this Court is of the view that when the parties have amicably settled the disputes in such offences, there is no requirement of trial and same would be against the ends of justice. Therefore, FIR is required to be quashed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 11. Therefore, FIR is required to be quashed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 11. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and the authorities cited by the learned advocate for the Applicants, and in the present case, there is amicable settlement arrived at between the complainant and the accused persons by way of an affidavit, therefore, it would be futile exercise and any further proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and if the trial shall take place and the purpose of the same would not be served and therefore in humble view of this Court, it would be just and proper to quash the aforesaid FIR. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the further development that took place in the matter as come forward by way of an Affidavit by the Respondent No.2 - Original Complainant, learned Advocate appearing for the Applicants has submitted that now the cause does not survive and therefore the FIR may be quashed and set aside. 13. This Court has referred to the land mark decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2017 SCC online SC 1189 and in case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 . Normally, this Court would not entertain the quashing applications in serious offences like offences under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC. But, in the present case offfences which are registered upon the Applicants are less serious in nature, which is discussed earlier. Therefore, with respect, latest law is not applicable to the present case. 13.1 Pursuant to FIR, it appears that the dispute is settled and therefore, in view of the fact that the dispute between the applicants and Respondents No. 2 - original complainants have been amicably settled, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and thereby peace is restored, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. Moreover, any further continuation of proceedings in this matter would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it would be expedient to quash the subject- FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 14. Moreover, any further continuation of proceedings in this matter would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it would be expedient to quash the subject- FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the submission made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, this Court is inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the Applicants vested under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. Therefore, the present applications deserves to be allowed with cost and accordingly stands allowed with cost. Hence, the FIR being C.R. No.-I-04 of 2018 registered with Aadipur Police Station, District:- Kachchh (East), Gandhidham for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 265, 323, 504, 143 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and all further and consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3622 of 2018 pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Gandhidham and C.R. No. I- 05 of 2018 registered with Aadipur Police Station, District:- Kachchh (East) -Gandhidham and Section 504, 506(2) and 143 of the Indian Penal Code and all further and consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3621 of 2018 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Gandhidham are hereby quashed and set aside. In short both F.I.R hereby quashed. 15. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The applications are disposed of with costs. The applicants and victims are directed to deposit amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Each) before the District Legal Services Authority, Kachchh - Bhuj within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. 16. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court and concerned Police Station through e-mail / fax.