2020 Supreme(Guj) 494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.
Krupalsinh Kalusinh Jhala – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 6210 of 2020
Decided on : 12-06-2020

Point of Law:
Philosophy behind the prescription of certain specified penal consequences for particular nature of crime. For some deterrence and/or vengeance becomes more important whereas another Judge may be more influenced by rehabilitation or restoration as the goal of sentencing. Sometimes, it would be a combination of both which would weigh in the mind of the Court in awarding a particular sentence. However, that may be question of quantum.

Headnote:

Criminal Law – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 504 and 506(2) – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 – Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) – Voluntarily causing hurt – Injuries – Amicable settlement arrived between parties – Seeking quash of First Information Report – FIR are that applicant No.1’s father is owner of field-Farm in morning at about 10.00 am the mother of applicant no.1 and his brother had gone to their filed for cattle grazing – At that time applicant no.1’s brother was sitting under a mango tree – At that point of time, the respondent No.2 - original complainant forcefully entered in field of applicant no.1’s father where his mother and brother were present – Respondent no.2, after forcefully entering filed, started plucking mangoes and when applicant no.1’s brother, who is not able to speak, tried to stop with gestures, respondent No.2 rained kick and fist blows and also inflicted injury with stick. applicant no.1’s brother complained of the same to his mother when intervened, the respondent No.2 administered threat to applicant no.1’s brother and at that point of time other neighbors also came there – Held, It is a private dispute and the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, especially when the respondent No. 2 – original complainant has chosen to put an end to the matter, no cause survives and, therefore, it would be desirable to quash the first information report in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another 1 as well as in case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2014 (0) AIJEL-SC 55150], whereby it is held that Courts should encourage genuine settlements and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, enables High Court to pass such orders – It would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant observations and findings of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narinder Singh (supra) – In the light of the aforementioned observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in decisions in the cases of Narinder Singh (supra) and Gian Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that this is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against society – They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides – In view of an amicable settlement arrived at by and between the parties – Application allowed. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)

Facts of the case:

FIR are that applicant No.1’s father is owner of field-Farm. On 12.04.2020, in morning at about 10.00 am the mother of applicant no.1 and his brother- Kishansinh had gone to their filed for cattle grazing – At that time applicant no.1’s brother Kishansinh was sitting under a mango tree – At that point of time, the respondent No.2 - original complainant forcefully entered in field of applicant no.1’s father where his mother and brother were present – Respondent no.2, after forcefully entering filed, started plucking mangoes and when Kishansinh, who is not able to speak, tried to stop with gestures, respondent No.2 rained kick and fist blows and also inflicted injury with stick. Kishansinh complained of the same to his mother Kumanba and when Kumanba intervened, the respondent No.2 administered threat to Kishansinh and at that point of time other neighbors- Ramjibhai Lalabhai Desai and Ajmalsinh Takhatsinh Rathod also came there.

Findings of the court:

It is a private dispute and the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, especially when the respondent No. 2 – original complainant has chosen to put an end to the matter, no cause survives and, therefore, it would be desirable to quash the first information report in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another 1 as well as in case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2014 (0) AIJEL-SC 55150], whereby it is held that Courts should encourage genuine settlements and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, enables High Court to pass such orders – It would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant observations and findings of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narinder Singh (supra) – In the light of the aforementioned observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in decisions in the cases of Narinder Singh (supra) and Gian Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that this is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against society – They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides – In view of an amicable settlement arrived at by and between the parties.

Result: Application allowed