Kirinbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat and Another

G.R. Udhwani, J.—Learned counsel Mr. N.B. Rajgor appears for respondent No. 2. RULE. The respondents waive service.

Considering the short dispute involved as also the settlement between the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

An FIR came to be registered at I - C.R. No. 201 of 2009 on 16.9.2010 complaining about kidnapping of complainant''s daughter by Milind Patel son of the petitioner. The chargesheet is filed. In the meanwhile, the complainant has tendered affidavit acknowledging a settlement between the complainant and the petitioner. It has been affirmed by her that she has no grievance against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 thus would submit that looking to the nature of the allegation against the petitioner even otherwise no case against him for the offences u/s 356 and 366 of Indian Penal Code is made out. It was, therefore, urged to quash the complaint and the proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner.

Learned APP vehemently opposed the settlement contending that the offence in question are serious in nature and are against the society and are not compoundable.

In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in para 61 laid down the following proposition of law while distinguishing Section 482 from Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The Hon''ble Supreme Court also provided the illustrative category of cases suitable for settlement and it was observed that the heinous crimes like robbery, dacoity and rape etc., cannot be settled and the suitability of the cases for settlement will depend upon the facts of each individual case. It was held that even the cases which are not compoundable u/s 320 of Cr.P.C. can be settled u/s 482 if the High Court finds the element of settlement.

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 u/s 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 F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim''s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.

Considering the ratio as above, the submission of learned APP cannot be countenanced. Mere invocation of provisions for serious offences would not necessarily lead to inference of commission of such offenses. Substratum or the gist of the complaint in such cases would be relevant. It is noticed that, in the compliant half-hearted allegation against the petitioner having abused and challenged the complainant that her daughter is not made available to him are made but no allegation worth the name attracting Sections 356 and 366 of IPC are made against the petitioner. Therefore the bare perusal of the complaint does not even indicate commission of offence under Sections 356 and 366 of IPC against the petitioner. As noticed above, even the allegation as regards commission of offence u/s 506(2) and 504 are half-hearted. It is not the case of the prosecution that any other additional material was found connecting the petitioner with the offence alleged while laying the chargesheet. Under such circumstances, particularly when the complainant has made his intention of not supporting prosecution case, clear by filing an affidavit the chances of prosecution succeeding against the petitioner are very bleak. Only achievement in such a trial would be wastage of public time, money and energy. Under the circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to acknowledge the settlement placed on record by way of affidavit by respondent No. 2. The settlement is acknowledged and the complaint and all connected proceedings arising therefrom including Sessions Case No. 51 of 2013 qua the petitioner are quashed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.