Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCR.A/1092/2011 6/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1092 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE [ENTITY] 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge? [ENTITY] & 2 - Petitioner(s) Versus [ENTITY] & 1 - Respondent(s) Appearance: MR [ENTITY] for Petitioner(s): 1 - 3. MR [ENTITY], ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s): 1, MR [ENTITY] for Respondent(s): 2, CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 02/05/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By this petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] read with [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the petitioners seek quashing of the first information report registered vide Nakhatrana Police Station I-C.R. No.23/2011.
2. The second respondent lodged the above first information report against the petitioners herein alleging commission of the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] on 19th March, 2011. The allegations made in the first information report are to the effect that the petitioners herein had falsely represented to the first informant that they are the owners of land bearing survey No.9/1 and had cheated the first informant and executed false documents in his favour knowing that the same were false and had as such committed the offence of breach of trust as well as forgery.
3. Mr. [ENTITY], learned advocate for the petitioners invited attention to the settlement deed dated 22nd February, 2011 entered into between the first informant and the petitioners herein to submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them pursuant to which the first informant no longer desires to prosecute the first information report any further. It was submitted that the dispute involved in the present case is more in the nature of a personal dispute and that the parties having settled the dispute between them, this is a fit case for exercise of powers under [SECTION] of the Code in the interest of justice.
4. Mr. [ENTITY], learned advocate appearing on behalf of the second respondent-first informant has placed on record an affidavit dated 1st May, 2012 made by the first informant wherein it has been averred that the first information report had been lodged by him on account of misunderstanding between the parties and that subsequent to the lodging of the first information report, the elders of the community of the first informant had intervened. That the petitioners No.1 and 2 and the first informant belong to the same community hence, upon the intervention of the elders of the community, the misunderstanding has been resolved and the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them. It is categorically stated therein that in the light of the above settlement, the first information report in question be quashed. The learned advocate has accordingly submitted that the second respondent is no longer interested in prosecuting the first information report and that the same may be quashed in the interest of justice.
5. A perusal of the allegations made in the first information report shows that the dispute involved in the present case pertains to execution of a sale deed in favour of the first informant and is in the nature of a private dispute. Subsequently, on account of intervention of the elders of the community, the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them.
6. In [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court was dealing with a case whereby the High Court had declined the prayer for quashing of the prosecution for the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] despite a compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused. The High Court had taken the view that since the offence punishable under [SECTION] was not compoundable, the settlement between the parties could not be recognised nor the pending proceedings quashed. The court summed up the approach to be adopted in such cases in the following words:
We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.
7. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs 250 which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the latter case. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case direct that FIR No. 155 dated 17-11-2001 PS Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed."
7. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] where relying upon its earlier decision in [ENTITY]'s case, the Supreme Court took note of the settlement arrived at between the parties and quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] and held that since the criminal proceedings had the overtone of a civil dispute which had been amicably settled between the parties, it was a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of the criminal proceedings since the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.
8. In Manoj Sharma vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC , the Supreme Court observed thus:
In our view, the High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The first information report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the first information report was the basis of the investigation by the police authorities, but the dispute between the parties remained one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter.
9. As we have indicated hereinbefore, the exercise of power under [SECTION] [ACT] of [SECTION] of the [ACT] is discretionary to be exercised in the facts of each case. In the facts of this case we are of the view that continuing with the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility."
9. In [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court after referring to its earlier decisions as well as the above referred decisions, held thus:
It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under [SECTION] [ACT] is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under [SECTION] [ACT]. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under [SECTION] [ACT] on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under [SECTION], the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under [SECTION] [ACT] are not for that purpose controlled by [SECTION] [ACT]."
10. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the above referred decisions of the Supreme Court, as noted hereinabove, the dispute involved is in the nature of a personal dispute. The parties to the dispute have amicably settled the dispute between them, pursuant to which the second respondent - first informant is no longer interested in prosecuting the petitioners herein. Under the circumstances, even if the prosecution is permitted to continue, it is apparent that there are hardly any chances of an ultimate conviction. Under the circumstances, continuance of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility and a waste of court's time. This is, therefore, a fit case for exercise of powers under [SECTION] of the Code.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The first information report registered vide Nakhatrana Police Station I-C.R.No.23/2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
( [ENTITY], J. ) hki