Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Guj) 970

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
Ravi Jayantibhai Vankar - Applicant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 4111 of 2020
Decided On : 10-10-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Vicky B. Mehta.
For the Respondents: Ms. Dishaben B. Saliya, Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, APP.

The court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings if it deems it necessary to secure the ends of justice, especially in cases where there is a settlement between the parties and continuation of the proceedings would be futile and an abuse of process of law.

Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 363, 366, 376(3); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 3, 4, 12, 11(6)
Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought to quash the FIR and charge-sheet filed against him for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act, citing an amicable settlement between the parties. The victim and the complainant, who is the victim's mother, filed affidavits stating that the victim had married the applicant and had no objection to quashing the FIR.
Finding of the Court:

The court, considering the settlement and relevant legal precedents, quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it, emphasizing that further continuation of the criminal proceedings would be unnecessary harassment and an abuse of process of law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR and related proceedings in light of the settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the settlement between the parties, the affidavits filed by the victim and the complainant, and legal precedents such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to quash the FIR, emphasizing that continuation of the proceedings would be futile and an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application, quashed the impugned FIR, and terminated all other proceedings arising from it, based on the settlement between the parties. The court clarified that it had not delved into the merits of the matter.

ORDER :

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. Dishaben B. Saliya, learned counsel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent no.2 and Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent no.1 – State.

2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.

3. By way of this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), the applicant herein has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this application;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being I-C.R. No. 148 of 2019 registered with Shaher Kotda Police Station, Ahmedabad (City) for the offence punishable under section 363, 366, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3, 4, 12, 11(6) of the POCSO Act, and charge-sheet being No. 125 of 2019 and Special POCSO Case No. 22 of 2019 registered and pending before the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad;

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Special POCSO Case No. 22 of 2019 pending before the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad;

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. Learned counsels appearing for the respective parties submitted that, during the pendency of the present application, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. The Affidavits filed by the complainant and victim are taken on record.

5. This Court on 22.08.2022, passed the following order, which reads thus :

“1. By way of the present application, the applicant herein seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside the FIR being I-C.R.No.148 of 2019 registered with Shaher Kotda Police Station, Ahmedabad (City), for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 12, 11(6) of the POCSO Act, which is registered on 24.07.2019 as well as charge-sheet being No.125 of 2019 as well as Special POCSO Case No.22 of 2019 pending before the Court of learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad, on the ground that compromise has been arrived at between the complainant, victim and the present applicant herein and the entire controversy as well as the dispute which is private in nature and settled and the complainant as well as the victim have no objection, if the FIR along with all consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside.

2. Mr. Vicky Mehta, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant - accused has married with the daughter of the complainant after attaining the age of majority and marriage was also registered on 31.01.2022. Copy of the Marriage Certificate is also produced with the Affidavit of the Complainant and Affidavit of the Victim and the same are taken on record. The applicant, victim and original complainant are present before this Court.

3. Ms. Disha Saliya, the learned advocate submitted that she has received instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and victim and seeks permission to file her Vakilatnama / appearance in the registry. Registry is directed to accept the same and show the name of Ms. Disha Saliya, the learned advocate appearing for the original complainant and victim.

4. Ms. Disha Saliya, the learned advocate appearing for the original complainant submitted that at the time of alleged offence, the victim girl is aged about 15 years and 3 months and now she attained the age of majority.

5. It appears that after filing of the complaint on 27.04.2019, the victim has attained majority on 27.01.2022. The date of Birth of the victim as stated in the complaint / FIR is 27.01.2004, the victim attained the age of majority on 27.01.