[ENTITY]V/S[ENTITY] R/CR.MA/4332/2012 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 4332 of 2012 [ENTITY] & 2 Applicant(s) Versus [ENTITY] & 1 Respondent(s) Appearance: [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 3 MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR [ENTITY], ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 08/10/2013 ORAL ORDER
Rule.
Mr. [ENTITY], learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the first respondent and Mr. [ENTITY], learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the second respondent.
Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
By this application under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the Code ), the applicants seek quashing of the first information report registered vide Bapunagar Police Station, Ahmedabad [CASE NUMBER].
The second respondent lodged the above referred first information report against the applicants herein alleging commission of the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT].
Subsequently, it appears that the parties have amicably settled the disputes between them pursuant to which, the first informant had declared before the learned City Civil and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad that the second respondent was never kidnapped by the applicants herein and that he had gone in the car of his own with a view to settle the accounts. However, on account of a situation which had been created at that point of time, he had lodged the complaint against the applicants herein. It is stated that the first information report came to be lodged in the heat of the moment and that, the applicants and the second respondent have entered into a compromise and that there is no ill-will between them. The second respondent has also filed an affidavit before this Court, wherein it has been stated that there was business transaction between the second respondent and the applicant No.1 as a result of which, the second respondent was required to pay Rs.1,40,000/- to the applicant No.1. That he had voluntarily gone with the applicants to understand the accounts of his transactions, however, the other employees had informed the police by telephone and therefore, the first information report was lodged at the instance of other persons. It has been categorically stated that he gives his consent for quashing the first information report in question.
Mr. [ENTITY], learned advocate for the applicants and Mr. [ENTITY], learned advocate for the second respondent have jointly submitted that in the light of the affidavit made by the second respondent, wherein he has stated that no offence as alleged had been committed as well as the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, the first information report in question is required to be quashed so as to prevent the abuse of the process of court.
This Court has also heard Mr. [ENTITY], learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent.
Before adverting to the merits of the case, it may be germane to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], wherein the Supreme Court after considering its earlier decisions in this regard held thus:
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 under [SECTION] 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the [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 a 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
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.
From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that the second respondent who had lodged the first information report against the applicants herein, has subsequently made an affidavit stating that no such offence had in fact taken place and that on account of the business transactions, the second respondent had willingly gone along with the applicants herein and that the first information report had been lodged in the heat of the moment. Under the circumstances, it is apparent that no offence as alleged had ever taken place. In the aforesaid premises, continuation of the proceedings against the applicants pursuant to the first information report would amount to an abuse of the process of court. This is, therefore, a fit case for exercise of powers under [SECTION] of the Code.
For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The first information report registered vide Bapunagar Police Station, Ahmedabad [CASE NUMBER] and all proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Pursuant to the oral directions issued by this Court, the applicants have deposited a sum of Rs,10,000/- with the Police Families Welfare Fund, Ahmedabad city. A copy of the receipt evidencing such payment has been placed on record.
Direct Service is permitted.
([ENTITY], J.) parmar* Page of 6