Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A.M. KHANWILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND ORS – Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1723 OF 2017 [Arising out of SLP(CRL) No 9549 of 2016]
Decided On : 04-10-2017
(2012) 10 SCC 303; (2014) 6 SCC 466; (2014) 15 SCC 29; (2016) 1 SCC 389; (2016)1 SCC 376 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Instantly, appellants absconding requiring issue of warrants u/s 70 – Secondly, appellants having criminal antecedents – All the appellants acting as a team in acts involving extortion, forgery and conspiracy – High Court rightly held that it was not in the interest of society to quash the FIR on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellants sought the quashing of a First Information Report registered against them under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Penal Code.
The High Court denied the relief u/s 482.
Finding of the Court:
High Court rightly refused to quash the proceedings.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The High Court’s use of Section 482 to quash FIRs in cases with settlement is not the same as compounding under Section 320; it depends on ends of justice and nature of the offence. (!) (!) (!) - Offences with a civil or commercial flavour may be quashed if settlement renders conviction remote and continuation would cause oppression, but serious/ societal-impact offences (e.g., extortion, forgery, conspiracy, economic fraud) generally should not be quashed. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The decision to quash depends on facts, gravity of the crime, absconding, antecedents, and public interest; mere settlement does not guarantee quashing in offences affecting society or financial systems. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Propositions from Gian Singh guide whether to exercise inherent jurisdiction to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, with emphasis on case-specific assessment of nature and gravity of offences. (!) (!) - The judgment emphasizes that for economic offences involving financial systems, continuing prosecution serves public interest even if settlement occurred. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Dr D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J
Leave granted.
2. By its judgment dated 25 November 2016, the High Court of Gujarat dismissed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellants sought the quashing of a First Information Report registered against them on 18 June 2016 with the City ‘C’ Division Police Station, District Jamnagar, Gujarat for offences punishable under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Penal Code. The second respondent is the complainant.
3. In his complaint dated 18 June 2016, the second respondent stated that certain land admeasuring 17 vigha comprised in survey 1408 at Panakhan Gokulnagar in Jamnagar city was his ancestral agricultural land. The land was converted to non-agricultural use on 21 June 1995 and 5 January 2000 pursuant to orders of the District Collector. One hundred and three plots were carved out of the land. Amongst them, plots 45 to 56 admeasuring 32,696 sq.ft. were in the joint names of six brothers and a sister (represented by the complainant). According to the complainant, a broker by the name of Bachhubhai Veljibhai Nanda approached him with Parbatbhai Ahir, the first appellant stating that he desired to purchase the land. On the next day, the first appellant approached the complainant with his partner Hasmukhbhai Patel (the third appellant) to purchase the land. The complainant was requested to provide a photocopy of the lay out plan of the plot, which he did. On the following day the first appellant is alleged to have gone to the house of the complainant with the second and the third appellants at which point in time, parties agreed that the land would be sold at the rate of Rs 4,221 per sq.ft. and a deal was struck for a consideration of Rs.1,13,58,711/-out of which an amount of Rs 11 lakhs was given in cash to the complainant for plot no.56. The complainant’s case is that while the discussion was on, he was requested by the second and the third appellants that since the power of attorney was old and unreadable all the plot holders should give their passport size photographs. Accordingly, a document was reduced to writing by which it was agreed that the sale transaction for plot no.56 would be completed within two months against full payment. According to the complainant, when he demanded the remaining payment for the plot from the second and third appellants, the second appellant provided him seven cheques each in the amount of Rs 6 lakhs in the name of the six brothers (one brother being given two cheques). Thereafter when the complainant followed up for the payment of the remaining amount with the purchasers, the balance was not paid and, on the contrary, the complainant was threatened of a forcible transfer of the land. According to the complainant, when he visited the office of the Sub-registrar about three days before lodging the complaint, it came to his knowledge that a sale deed has been registered not only in respect of the plot in question (which was agreed to be sold) but also in respect of plot nos.45 to 55 on 27 January 2016. It was then that the complainant realised that the purchaser in the sale deed was shown as the fourth appellant, Jayesh Arvindbhai Patel, and the name of the seventh appellant, Jitudan Nankudan Gadhavi, resident of Payalnagar society, Naroda, Ahmedabad was shown as the holder of a power of attorney. The witnesses to the registered sale deed were the fifth appellant, Rabari Hiteshbhai and the sixth appellant, Patel Indravaden Dineshbhai.
4. The complaint came to be lodged on the complainant having realised that the power of attorney in the name of his siblings had been forged. The complainant stated that neither he nor any of his siblings had given a power of attorney in favour of the seventh appellant. According to the complainant, neither the non-judicial stamp dated 25 January 2016 in the amo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
