SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Guj) 706

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.
Denish Harshadray Pandya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & others – Respondents
R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 10928 of 2017
Decided on : 10-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR NIRAD D BUCH, MRS. BHAVINI N. BUCH
For the Respondent: MR Y J PATEL, MS ASMITA PATEL

Amicable settlement and the abuse of process of law can be grounds for quashing an FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Headnote:

Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Amicable Settlement

Fact of the Case:

The applicants sought to quash an FIR against them for offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The parties had amicably settled their differences, and the respondent filed an affidavit stating no grievance against the applicants and no objection to quashing the criminal proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court, considering the amicable settlement and relevant case law, found that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be unnecessary harassment and an abuse of process of law. The court concluded that quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings was necessary to secure the ends of justice.

Issues: Amicable settlement, Quashing of FIR, Abuse of process of law

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on relevant case law to determine that continuation of criminal proceedings would be futile and an abuse of process of law, leading to the decision to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.

Final Decision: The application was allowed, and the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Nirad Buch for the applicant, learned Advocate Mr.Patel for the org. complainant - respondent No.2 and Ms.Asmita Patel, learned APP for respondent-State. Respondent No.2 is present before the Court and has been verified by the learned Counsel representing.

2. Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the applicants and respondent No.2 has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

3. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I-249 of 2016 registered with Raopura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 323, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicant herein.

4. Learned counsel for the respective parties submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceedings, as referred to above, the parties have amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement and pursuant to understanding arrived at between them, the Respondent has accordingly filed an affidavit dated 29.07.2023, which is on record. Respondent No.2 is identified by learned Advocate Mr.Y J Patel who also confirms the contents of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2; to which there is no dispute between the parties. Relevant paragraph of the said affidavit reads thus:

    “3. I state that I have no grievance against present petitioner, and we have amicably resolved out disputes with a view to keep peace and harmony and thus, I have no grievance against the petitioner now and therefore, I have no objection if the FIR being I-249 of 2016 registered with Raopura Police Station, Dist: Vadodara City and all other consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside.

4. I further say that I have resolved the dispute with petitioner, and I have no ill-will or grievance against the petitioner now and therefore, I have no objection if the criminal proceeding against the applicant is quashed”

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present applications as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law and Court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR and other consequential proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code.

6. Resultantly, this application is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-249 of 2016 registered with Raopura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 323, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code filed against the present applicants is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top