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

2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 15021

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J
MANISHABEN MULJIBHAI PARMAR W/O AJAYKUMAR VANIYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 3554 of 2022



Petitioner Advocates:MS POONAM M MAHETA(11265) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The court emphasized that FIRs can be quashed when disputes are amicably settled, preventing unnecessary harassment to the accused.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Parties resolved dispute amicably; original complainant filed affidavit stating no objection to quashing - FIR alleged offences under IPC Sections 323, 294(b), 506(2), and 114 - Court emphasized caution in exercising inherent powers under Section 482, ensuring no legitimate prosecution is stifled - Court referenced principles from various Supreme Court cases regarding quashing FIRs and the necessity of sufficient material for decision-making. (Paras 2.0, 5.0, 6.0, 8.0)

(B) IPC - Section 294(b) - Mere abusive words do not constitute an offence; must prove annoyance to others - Court referenced Supreme Court decision on obscenity. (Para 7.0)

(C) IPC - Section 506(2) - Criminal intimidation requires intention to cause alarm - Court referenced Supreme Court decision on strict interpretation of penal statutes. (Para 7.1)

(D) IPC - Section 323 - No serious injury sustained by complainant - Court noted lack of evidence for serious injury. (Para 7.3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR for offences under IPC, stating the dispute was amicably settled, supported by an affidavit from the complainant.

Findings of Court:
The FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed due to the amicable resolution of the dispute.

Issues: Whether the FIR should be quashed given the amicable settlement and the nature of the allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the continuation of proceedings would cause unnecessary harassment, and the FIR did not warrant further action due to the settlement.

Result: Petition allowed; FIR quashed.

ORAL ORDER

[1.0] Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

[2.0] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.11191040220684 of 2022 registered with Sardarnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

[3.0] Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit dated 04.05.2024 which is taken on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the petitioners has been resolved amicably and that he has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.

[4.0] Going through the impugned FIR it appears that the same is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 alleging that accused No.1 hurled abuses to respondent No.2 and his mother and also beaten up mother of respondent No.2 and accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 also hurled abuses to respondent No.2 and accused No.2 threatened to kill respondent No.2. It is under these circumstances that the impugned FIR came to be filed.

[5.0] It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the CrPC is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.

[6.0] Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) as also considering the fact that now the dispute is amicably settled for which respondent No.2 has also filed an affidavit affirming the fact of settlement and hence, in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioners in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Therefore, it woul

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