Gujarat High CourtUpendrasinh Pravinsinh Sisodiya & 3 vs State Of Gujarat & on 17 February, 2017Author:A.J. ShastriBench:A.J. ShastriR/CR.MA/5428/2008                                           JUDGMENT




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5428 of 2008



         FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:



         HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI

         ==========================================================

         1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
               to see the judgment ?

         2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

         3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
               the judgment ?

         4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of
               law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
               India or any order made thereunder ?

         ==========================================================
                  UPENDRASINH PRAVINSINH SISODIYA & 3....Applicant(s)
                                      Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR RJ GOSWAMI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 4
         MR. KALRAV R PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         MR LR PUJARI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

             CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI

                                      Date : 17/02/2017


                                      ORAL JUDGMENTPage 1 of 6HC-NIC                                  Page 1 of 6      Created On Sun Aug 13 04:06:23 IST 2017
             R/CR.MA/5428/2008                                                   JUDGMENT1. The   present       petition        invoking          the     jurisdiction               of
           this Court undersection 482of the Code of Criminal
           Procedure Code is filed by the petitioners to quash
           the First Information Report being I.C.R.No.104 of
           2008 lodged before the Visnagar Police Station for
           the    offence       punishable             undersections           366,     506(2)
           read withsection 114of Indian Penal Code.2. The present petition was entertained by this Court by
           issuing      rule      vide     order        dated      6.5.2008           and     while
           admitting the petition, ad-interim relief was granted
           which appears to have been continued till date.3. It is reported that during the pendency of present
           proceedings, the parties have interse resolved the
           dispute and the grievance which was voiced out in the
           FIR and the learned advocate, Mr. Kalrav R. Patel
           appearing        for    respondent             No.2-original            complainant
           has    tendered         affidavit               on     behalf         of     original
           complainant.           The     relevant           extract          of      the      said
           affidavit is quoted hereinafter:"1. I say that I am the original first
                   informant who has lodged an F.I.R with Visnagar
                   Police   Station,   Dist.   Mehsana  being   I-
                   C.R.No.104/2008 for the alleged offences undersections 366,506(1)and1124of Indian Penal
                   Code against the present petitioners and one
                   another accused persons for which the present
                   proceedings for quashing is filed.2.   I say that the petitioner No.1 namely
                   Upendrasinh Pravinsinh Sisodiya has married with
                   my daughter namely Bhumika on 04.04.2008 at
                   Himmatnagar and out of the said marriage they
                   are having one son aged 7 years namely Aaryaraj.Page 2 of 6HC-NIC                                   Page 2 of 6       Created On Sun Aug 13 04:06:23 IST 2017
                R/CR.MA/5428/2008                                                  JUDGMENT3.   I say that the matter is settled between me
                      and the present petitioners and I do not have
                      any grievances against the petitioners. I
                      further say that I and my family members have
                      accepted the said marriage.4.   I say that therefore, in view of the
                      aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not wish
                      to prosecute against the present petitioners.
                      Hence, if the F.I.R. And subsequent proceedings
                      are quashed and set aside against all the
                      accused persons then I have no objection. I
                      further say that the settlement has been arrived
                      at without any force or coercion."4.    Learned advocates for both the sides have                                    jointly
              stated      before      the     Court        that     in     true      sense,        the
              grievance            which was voiced out in the petition is
              settled down amicably and both have jointly requested
              the Court to quash the FIR in view of the aforesaid
              situation. Both the learned advocates have identified
              their respective              parties, who are present in the
              Court      including          the       respondent            No.2-complainant
              father. The factum of settlement is also examined by
              learned APP, Mr. L.R.Pujari and found to be truthful.
              It   is     clear      from     the         affidavit       affirmed          by     the
              respondents           accused     No.2-original             complainant            that
              petitioner            No.1      namely         Upendrasinh               Pravinsinh
              Sisodiya        has     married         with      the      daughter           of     the
              respondent            No.2-complainant              namely           Bhumika             on
              04.04.2008 and they have also a son aged 7 years
              named Aaryaraj living with                        them at present.                       On
              going through the affidavit filed by                                   respondents
              accused No.2-complainant, it is clear that in true
              sense, the parties, who are present before the Court,
              have settled the dispute and hence, no purpose will
              be served to prosecute the complaint any further andPage 3 of 6HC-NIC                                      Page 3 of 6      Created On Sun Aug 13 04:06:23 IST 2017
             R/CR.MA/5428/2008                                               JUDGMENT




           to drag the parties in litigation any further.5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
           case    ofGian    Sing   Vs.       State      of    Punjab         and     Anr.reported in (2012)10 SCC page 303 that the offences
           arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to
           dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is
           basically to victim and the offender and victim have
           settled all disputes between them amicably,                              the High
           Court may within the framework of its inherent power,
           quash the F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face
           of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of
           offender       being    convicted        and     by     not      quashing         the
           criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and
           ends of justice shall be defeated.                        Paragraph Nos.53
           and 54 of the aforesaid decision which are relevant
           for the purpose of deciding this case are reproduced
           hereunder:"53.   Quashing    of   offence   or   criminal
                         proceedings on the ground of settlement
                         between an offender and victim is not the
                         same thing as compounding of offence. They
                         are   different    and   not  interchangeable.
                         Strictly speaking, the power of compounding
                         of offences given to a court underSection
                         320is    materially   different   from   the
                         quashing of criminal proceedings by the High
                         Court    in    exercise    of   its    inherent
                         jurisdiction. In compounding of offences,
                         power of a criminal court is circumscribed
                         by the provisions contained inSection 320and the court is guided solely and squarely
                         thereby while, on the other hand, the
                         formation of opinion by the High Court for
                         quashing a criminal offence or criminal
                         proceeding or criminal complaint is guided
                         by the material on record as to whether thePage 4 of 6HC-NIC                               Page 4 of 6       Created On Sun Aug 13 04:06:23 IST 2017
          R/CR.MA/5428/2008                                            JUDGMENT



                      ends of justice would justify such exercise
                      of power although the ultimate consequence
                      may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.54. Where High Court quashes a criminal
                      proceeding having regard to the fact that
                      dispute between the offender and victim has
                      been settled although offences are not
                      compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
                      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 peace is
                      restored; securing the ends of justice being
                      the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt,
                      crimes are acts which have harmful effect on
                      the public and consist in wrong doing that
                      seriously endangers and threatens well-being
                      of society and it is not safe to leave the
                      crime-doer only because he and the victim
                      have settled the dispute amicably or that
                      the victim has been paid compensation, yet
                      certain crimes have been made compoundable
                      in law, with or without permission of the
                      Court. In respect of serious offences like
                      murder,   rape,   dacoity,    etc;    or  other
                      offences of mental depravity underIPCor
                      offences of moral turpitude under special
                      statutes, likePrevention of Corruption Actor the offences committed by public servants
                      while   working    in   that    capacity,   the
                      settlement between offender and victim can
                      have no legal sanction at all. However,
                      certain offences which overwhelmingly and
                      predominantly bear civil flavour having
                      arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial,
                      financial,    partnership    or     such   like
                      transactions or the offences arising out of
                      matrimony, particularly relating to dowry,
                      etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong
                      is basically to victim and the offender and
                      victim have settled all disputes between
                      them amicably, irrespective of the fact that
                      such    offences    have    not    been    made
                      compoundable, the High Court may within the
                      framework of its inherent power, quash the
                      criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or
                      F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of
                      such   settlement,    there   is   hardly   anyPage 5 of 6HC-NIC                          Page 5 of 6      Created On Sun Aug 13 04:06:23 IST 2017
                    R/CR.MA/5428/2008                                            JUDGMENT



                                likelihood of offender being convicted and
                                by not quashing the criminal proceedings,
                                justice shall be casualty and ends of
                                justice shall be defeated. The above list is
                                illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case
                                will depend on its own facts and no hard and
                                fast category can be prescribed. "6.In light of the aforesaid ratiolaid down bythe
                  Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that
                  proceeding further with               the impugned F.I.R. would be
                  an exercise in futility and hence, this petition is
                  required to be allowed.7. In the result, this Criminal Misc. Application is allowed.The First Information Report being I.C.R.No.104 of
                  2008 registered before the Visnagar Police Station
                  for the offence punishable under sections 366, 506(2)
                  read withsection 114of Indian Penal Code and the
                  proceedings therein are hereby quashed. Rule is made
                  absolute.(A.J. SHASTRI, J.)
         RADHANPage 6 of 6HC-NIC                                    Page 6 of 6      Created On Sun Aug 13 04:06:23 IST 2017