Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1236 (GUJ)

THAKORE RAMESHJEE GAGAJEE v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2024-06-13

GITA GOPI

body2024
ORDER : 1. The present Revision Application has been filed by original accused no. 1 against the order of conviction qua original accused no. 1-revisionist herein by the appellate Court i.e. learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Visnagar at Mahesana dated 27.04.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2024 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Mahesana convicted the revisionist herein for offence under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and i/d of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment whereas the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the original accused no. 2 Somiben Rameshji of all the offences with which she was charged. 2. Today, the original complainant viz. Thakore Gandaji before this Court states that quarrel had taken place because of some misunderstanding with regarding cutting of grass from the agricultural field. He further states that the injury which he had sustained during the scuffle was caused to him by Dhariya being used in agricultural activities. He further states that both the complainant and the present revisionist stay in same street and cultivating agricultural fields on tenancy basis and the dispute between them has been resolved on intervention of good social friends and relatives. He states that affidavit to that effect has been filed by him wherein it is stated that dispute has been amicably resolved with a view to maintain peace and harmony in the village and now there is no ill-will against each of the person and he has no objection if the criminal proceedings initiated at his instance against the present revisionist is closed and revisionist is acquitted. He states that as the dispute has already been resolved he makes a prayer to compound offence and set aside the sentence stating that he does not want to see the applicant going to jail. 3. Mr. Pankaj Chaudhari, learned advocate for the revisionist has submitted that settlement has been arrived at with the intervention of family members and community members and if the settlement is accepted compounding offence then there would be peace and tranquility and will be helpful to maintain law and order situation in the village and, therefore, prayed to accept the settlement between the parties and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the present revisionist-original accused no. 1. 4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. The complainant and the original accused no. 1. 4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. The complainant and the original accused no. 1-who is revisionist both are present in the Court. Both have agreed that settlement has been arrived at between them in view of intervention of elders, family friends and social members of their community so as to maintain peace, tranquility and harmonious atmosphere in the society. Further, the complainant having been sustained with agricultural instrument like Dhariya is out of danger and before the Court he states that settlement has been arrived at and dispute amongst the two has been resolved which would help both the families to ease ill-will in future also. 5. It is true that certain section of 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, 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 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 questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 6. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, (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, (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.” 7. In the present case, the impugned complaint is filed by the original complainant and the Affidavit of the original complainant, respondent no. 2 herein, regarding settlement of the dispute has been executed on 13.06.2024. Admittedly, the dispute is a private and personal affair. The injury sustained does not involve any mental depravity nor amounts to a heinous crime. The parties are residing in the same locality and have been staying there since many years. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, there exists no scope for any further proceeding in the matter. The injury sustained does not involve any mental depravity nor amounts to a heinous crime. The parties are residing in the same locality and have been staying there since many years. 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 more particularly when the original complainant, as per his affidavit which is taken on record, does not want to further initiate any proceedings and does not want to see the revisionist going to the jail in order to maintain future peace, tranquility and harmonious relation. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction of the present revisionist dated 27.04.2015 passed by the appellate Court i.e. learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Visnagar at Mahesana in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2024 and trial Court in Criminal Case No. 425 of 2010 dated 16.01.2014 qua the present applicant is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. 9. Direct Service is permitted.