Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
RAJESH @ MUNO DAMODAR SHETHIYA & 4 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 884 of 2015
Decided On : 02/03/2015
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code, Gujarat Police Act - 395, 397, 307, 325, 324, 323, 452, 427, 506(2), 504, 34, 135(1) - The court discussed the settlement between the parties, the nature of the offenses, and the legal provisions allowing for quashing of criminal proceedings based on compromise.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the FIR registered for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Gujarat Police Act, citing an amicable settlement between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had voluntarily settled the dispute, and continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose. It was noted that the offenses were personal in nature and did not affect public peace or tranquility.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed based on the settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal provision allowing for quashing of criminal proceedings when the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offenses are noncompoundable. It emphasized that in cases where the offenses are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility, quashing the proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure ends of justice.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR was ordered to be quashed, with all further proceedings terminated.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. HB Punani waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2 – original complainant.
2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the petitioner has prayed that the FIR being C.R. No. I428 of 2013 registered with City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar be quashed and set aside.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Premal S. Rachh for the petitioners. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the FIR being C.R.No.I428 of 2013 came to be registered with City 'B' Division Police Station, Jamnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 307, 325, 324, 323, 452, 427, 506(2), 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act. Learned advocate submitted that after the aforesaid FIR is filed, Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned Magistrate Court and thereafter it has been committed to the learned Sessions Court. During the pendency of the said trial, matter is amicably settled with respondent No.2 – original complainant and the injured. Learned advocate further submitted that compromise deed is executed by the parties on 03.07.2014. Copy of the same is produced on page 29 of the compilation. Learned advocate further referred to the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 – original complainant, which is produced on page 21 of the compilation. Similarly, he has also referred to the affidavit filed by one Jitendra Jethalal Kankhara i.e. the injured witness and submitted that in the affidavits filed by the first informant and the injured witness they have specifically stated that the dispute is settled out of the Court and therefore if the impugned FIR and the chargesheet filed pursuant thereto are quashed and set aside, they are not having any objection for the same.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in AIR 2014 SC 3055. Learned advocate for the petitioner further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466. Learned advocate for the petitioners further relied upon the orders passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.20710 of 2014, Criminal Misc. Application No.16176 of 2014 and Criminal Misc. Application No.11060 of 2014, and submitted that in all the aforesaid cases, the concerned complainant filed the complaint for the offences punishable under Section 307 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and when the matter was settled between the original complainant and the injured witnesses, the Hon’ble Courts have quashed the FIR on the ground of settlement.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Shri Pratik Jasani appearing for respondent No.2 has also supported the arguments of learned advocate for the petitioners and submitted that if the impugned FIR is quashed and set aside, respondent No.2 as well as the injured witness have no objection. He has further stated that the dispute is amicably settled out of the Court. Respondent No.2 as well as the injured witness were remained present on 23.02.2015 before this Court and the learned advocate for respondent No.2 has identified respondent No.2 and the injured witness.
6. Learned APP Ms. Punani also submitted that the alleged offences are serious in nature. However, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court may pass appropriate order in the interest of justice.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and having gone through the documents produced on record and the decisions cited by
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
