Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 71 (GUJ)

Rinkubhai Bhogilal Patel v. State of Gujarat

2023-01-09

GITA GOPI

body2023
ORDER : 1. Rule. Mr. Dhawan Jayswal and Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutors waive service of Rule on behalf of the respondent–State and the learned advocates appearing for the original complainants waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective original complainants. Both the matters have been filed for quashing the FIRs on merits. 2. Criminal Misc. Application no.6867 of 2020 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 No.11197046200209/2020 registered with Shinor Police Station Vadodara Rural for offences punishable under Sections 323, 506(2) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. 3. Criminal Misc. Application no.14805 of 2020 has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the FIR No.11197046200509/2020 registered with Shinor Police Station Vadodara Rural for offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 203, 193, 182, 114 of the IPC. 4. It has been stated by the learned advocates for the applicants that both the FIRs have arisen out of the same incident and both the complainants are facing the prosecution and because of the intervention of community people, friends and family members, compromise has been arrived at and both the advocates submit that the settlement of the issues would bring peace and harmony in the locality and even between the family members. Therefore, in the larger interest of the society, the impugned FIRs may be quashed and set aside. 5. Both the complainants – Rinkubhai Bhogilal Patel and Vijaybhai Manibhai @ Manilal Vasava are present before this Court and both have affirmed the affidavits filed and state that now there is no grievance between any of them and continuation of FIR would rather affect the society and thus, both of them have urged to quash the FIRs. 6. Mr. Dhawan Jayswal and Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the respondent-State submitted that any FIR should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein. Learned APPs have urged that the settlement under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 should not be accepted since it is a special provision and the trial should proceed. 7. Learned APPs have urged that the settlement under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 should not be accepted since it is a special provision and the trial should proceed. 7. Learned advocates for the original complainants have concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocates appearing for the applicants. The Court verified the contents of the compromise with the original complainants who are present before the Court. The original complainants affirmed the affidavits, wherein terms of settlement have been recorded. The original complainants categorically stated that they have no grievance against the applicants and that they have no objection to the quashment of the impugned FIRs filed by them. 8. 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 question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 9. In Swaran Singh and others V. State, Through Standing Counsel and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 435 , the Apex Court has drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. In Swaran Singh and others V. State, Through Standing Counsel and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 435 , the Apex Court has drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building, e.g. in a lawn outside a house and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends), then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. 10. In the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Per: Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt) referred to the judgment rendered in the case of Raghunathrao Ganpatrao vs. Union of India, reported in 1993 (1) SCR 480 , wherein it has been held as under:- “In our considered opinion this argument is misconceived and has no relevance to the facts of the present case. One of the objectives of the Preamble of our Constitution is ‘fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.’ It will be relevant to cite the explanation given by Dr. Ambedkar for the word ‘fraternity’ explaining that ‘fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians.’ In a country like ours with so many disruptive forces of regionalism, communalism and linguism, it is necessary to emphasis and re-emphasis that the unity and integrity of India can be preserved only by a spirit of brotherhood. India has one common citizenship and every citizen should feel that he is Indian first irrespective of other basis. In this view, any measure at bringing about equality should be welcome.” 11. In a similar way, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandini Sundar Vs. State of Ghhatisgarh, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 457, held that :- “The Constitution itself, in no uncertain terms, demands that the State shall strive, incessantly and consistently, to promote fraternity amongst all citizens such that dignity of every citizen is protected, nourished and promoted.” 12. State of Ghhatisgarh, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 457, held that :- “The Constitution itself, in no uncertain terms, demands that the State shall strive, incessantly and consistently, to promote fraternity amongst all citizens such that dignity of every citizen is protected, nourished and promoted.” 12. In the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) while dealing with the constitutional validity of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it was held as under:- “12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameter, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear and no argument to the contrary has been raised.” 13. 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. 14. In the result, the applications are allowed. The FIR No.11197046200209/2020 and FIR No.11197046200509/2020 both registered with Shinor Police Station Vadodara Rural 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.