Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 233 (GUJ)

HIRABHAI DANABHAI KODIATAR v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2023-02-03

GITA GOPI

body2023
ORDER : 1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutors waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Rohan Vaghela, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of the original complainant-respondent no. 2. 2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing CR No. I-13/2017 registered with Mangrol Marine Police Station, Junagadh for offences punishable under Sections 304A and 114 of the IPC. 3. Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the applicants submits that the complainant has settled the issue with Pashchim Gujarat Vij Company Limited since the applicants-accused are the employees of the Company and there is no criminal negligence of the applicants and the case of the complainant is that his daughter, who was studying in Std.10 in Divasa Village, was on her way to school and one 11 KV live wire fell on her body resulting into her death. Mr. Dave submits that initially accidental death was reported and thus, on further report, FIR came to be filed. Mr. Dave submits that the allegation is that the accident could have been avoided but for improper guarding and maintenance of the electricity, the incident has occurred. Mr. Dave submits that there is no case of any negligence of any of the applicants and at the most, the complainant could show the civil negligence of the electricity Company and for that, he could be compensated for the loss of his child and as per the norms of GUVNL, requisite compensation would be Rs.2 lacs to be paid to the family of the victim. 4. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned APP for the respondent-State submits that in case of electrocution, the criminal liability is required to be laid down though the direct act of the applicants could not be attributed. Learned APP submits that this is a case of death of a minor child who could be a good citizen of the country and would have contributed for the development. 5. Mr. Rohan Vaghela, learned advocate for the complainant-respondent no. Learned APP submits that this is a case of death of a minor child who could be a good citizen of the country and would have contributed for the development. 5. Mr. Rohan Vaghela, learned advocate for the complainant-respondent no. 2 submits that the complainant is present before this Court with the affidavit who has, from the incident, not found any criminal negligence of the applicants and therefore, according to him, he does not have any dispute against PGVCL or the officers and for that purpose, he has filed the affidavit. The complainant is present before this Court who is identified by learned advocate Mr. Vaghela. Let his Vakalatnama be accepted on record. The complainant has affirmed the affidavit which is notarized on 19.1.2023 and states that he does not want to pursue further the criminal complaint against the applicants. The complainant categorically stated that the complainant has no grievance against the applicants and that the complainant has no objection to quashment of the impugned FIR. 6. The Sections which have been invoked against the present applicants are Sections 304A and 114 of the IPC. To constitute an offence under Section 304A, it would be necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused were rash and negligent in their act not amounting to culpable homicide. Here, the present applicants are the employees of the PGVCL and the allegation is that while the child - minor girl of the complainant was going to her school, where live wire fell on her and which has resulted into electrocution. There is no direct evidence of any person much less the present applicants working at the place, where live wire fell on the child. It is stated that the wire was laid down in the year 2012 and snapping occurred because of squirrel and the said act cannot be attributed to the present applicants. Taking this fact into consideration, the settlement is accepted since no direct nexus could be connected with the electrocution to any of the act to constitute as rash and negligent act of the present applicants. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited had paid the compensation to the complainant. Considering the civil liability and the facts on record, continuation of the trial would be an unnecessary burden on the applicants and further the act does not suggest any rash and negligent act of any of the applicants. 7. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited had paid the compensation to the complainant. Considering the civil liability and the facts on record, continuation of the trial would be an unnecessary burden on the applicants and further the act does not suggest any rash and negligent act of any of the applicants. 7. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (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. 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. 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 pre-dominatingly 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 question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 8. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, there exists no scope for any further proceeding in the matter. The continuance of proceedings would lead to wastage of precious judicial time as there would remain no possibility of any conviction in the case. Hence, the Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case where the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could be exercised for securing the ends of justice. 9. In the result, the application is allowed. Hence, the Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case where the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could be exercised for securing the ends of justice. 9. In the result, the application is allowed. The FIR bearing CR No. I-13/2017 registered with Mangrol Marine Police Station, Junagadh and the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside qua the present applicants. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.