SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 474

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM & RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.
JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA - Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. - Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 1040 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8783 of 2011)
Decided on 20-07-2012.

IMPORTANT POINT
Quashing of FIR in offence not compoundable u/s 320, Cr.P.C.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - An offence being Non-compoundable is no ground for refusing relief under section 482 - Inherent powers of the High Court are not controlled by Section 320 Cr PC. (Para 8)

        (2011) 10 SCC 705 - Relied upon

        (b) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Settlement between the complainant and the accused - No chance of recording a conviction - Trial will be an exercise in futility - Trial yet to commence - High Court can exercise its power u/s 482. (Paras 8 and 9)

       Facts of the case:

        The provision of section 482, Cr.P.C. relating to quashing of FIR is the subject matter of this case.

       Finding of the Court:

        Terms of settlement between the complainant and the accused accepted.

       Result : Appeal allowed. FIR quashed.

       

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 18.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3999 of 2011 whereby the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein (original Accused No. 3) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) to quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 45 of 2011 dated 12.03.2011 lodged by Vipulbhai Harshadbhai Raja, Respondent No. 2 herein with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’).

3. Brief facts:

(i) Respondent No. 2 herein is the President of Shri Supan Plot Owners’ Association situated at Village Nidhrad, Sanand, Ahmedabad. Certain plots of the said Association were disposed of illegally by creating false/forged documents by one Pravinbhai Gangashankar Raval (original Accused No.1) in favour of one Janakben Pravinchandra Raval (original Accused No.2) who, in turn, sold the same to one Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana, the appellant herein (original Accused No. 3).

(ii) Pursuant to the same, Respondent No. 2 herein lodged FIR No. 45 of 2011 dated 12.03.2011 alleging about the sheer collusion of all the three above named accused persons in disposing of the plots.

(iii) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant herein (Accused No.3) preferred an application under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court to quash and set aside the said FIR. The High Court, by impugned order dated 18.07.2011, dismissed the same.

(iv) Challenging the said order of the High Court, the appellant has filed the above appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

4. Heard Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel for respondent No.1-State of Gujarat and Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.2 – the Complainant.

5. In view of the subsequent development, as narrated in the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 in this Court, there is no need to traverse all the factual details about the allegations and the ultimate order passed by the High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code. The following averments in the counter affidavit are relevant for disposal of the above appeal which reads as under:

“5. That after the filing of the present special leave petition, the petitioner to show his bona fides and to prove that he himself is a victim has approached the answering respondent. The answering respondent was informed by the petitioner that the petitioner himself got cheated by Pravinbhai Gangashanker Raval and Janakben Pravinchandra Raval (accused Nos. 1 & 2 in the instant case FIR No. 45/2011). The petitioner further informed the answering respondent that he shall not claim any right, title, interest over the various plots belonging to the association and accordingly he has no right or title over the same.

6. The petitioner further submitted that he was also cheated by the other accused persons who sold the properties being subject the matter of dispute to whom on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, by which no rights can be transferred legally.

7. That the petitioner further informed the answering respondent that he has also filed a police complaint against the said accused Pravinbhai Gangashanker Raval and Janakben Pravinchandra Raval (accused Nos. 1 & 2 in the instant case FIR No. 45/2011) before the Special Investigation Team, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.

8. That the petitioner further assured and has given an affidavit to the answering respondent that he will withdraw the Civil Suit bearing No. 300/2011, titled as Jayarajsingh Digvijaysingh Rana vs. Supan Plot Owners Association & Ors. filed before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for specific performance and declaration, accepting that the p












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top