Point of Law: whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC

ORDER :

1. Rule. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and advocate Ms. Neha Kayastha for Ms. Sejal K.Mandavia, learned advocate, waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 respectively.

2. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R.No.I-156 of 2019 registered with Sahibaug Police Station, Dist.: Ahmedabad for offfences punishable under section 498-A, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of IPC and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

3. Mr. Ekant G.Ahuja, learned advocate for the applicants, submitted that the parties have settled the dispute amicably outside the Court and that there remains no grievance between them. It was submitted that the parties had executed a settlement agreement dated 11.11.2020, wherein they had agreed to withdraw all the proceedings initiated by them. Mr. Ahuja submits that original complainant – respondent no.2 has also executed an affidavit dated 09.04.2021 consenting to quash and set aside the impugned complaint and the proceedings initiated thereto and therefore, in the larger interest of the society, the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside.

3.1 Learned advocate submitted that the Court may verify the said aspect from the original complainant, respondent no.2.

4. Learned advocate, Ms. Neha Kayastha for Ms. Sejal K.Mandavia, learned advocate for respondent no.2, original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate Mr. Ekant G.Ahuja appearing for the applicants.

5. The original complainant – respondent no.2 is present before the virtual court. The virtual Court verified about the settlement and the contents of the affidavit executed by her. The original complainant – respondent no.2 affirmed about the settlement executed between the parties. The respondent no.2, original complainant, categorically stated that she has no grievance against the applicants and that she has no objection to the quashment of the impugned first information report filed by her.

6. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that any First Information Report should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein.

7. This Court has heard the learned advocates on both the sides and has perused the material on record. The respondent no.2 – original complainant affirmed that dispute with the applicants has been amicably resolved with the help of close friends and senior members of society and that the impugned complaint had been filed because of some misunderstanding and misconception. It is also affirmed that there is no ill-will between the parties and that the original complainant had not sustained any serious injury in the alleged incident.

8. It is true that the offences alleged against the applicant under the Indian Penal Code are non-compoundable and that some of the offences could be compounded with the permission of the Court. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, the present matter would fall under the criteria laid down therein. In paragraph-61 of the said judgment, it has been observed thus:

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim