CR.MA/1113220/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 11132 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Sd/- ============================================= = 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 ? 1 & 2 YES; 3 to 5 NO ============================================= = GAURIBEN W/O GAMBHIRBHAI SAVJIBHAI - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ============================================= = Appearance : MR ANIL S DAVE for Applicant(s) : 1,MRS SHILPA R SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1, MR IM PANDYA ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, MS. KRUTI M SHAH for Respondent(s) : 2, ============================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 15/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, CR.MA/1113220/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT 1973 for quashing the F.I.R. filed by respondent No.2 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 498-A, 306 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the IPC" for short), alleging that the daughter of the complainant was subjected to cruelty and driven to commit suicide. The F.I.R. was lodged on the very next day of death of the deceased, i.e. 13.06.2008; and the present petition is filed on 26.08.2008 annexing a deed of compromise dated 08.07.2008. It is stated in the compromise deed that the original complainant and the accused persons have entered into a compromise by intervention of elders and looking to the larger interest of three minor children and their upbringing. It is stipulated in the compromise deed that the complainant would be required to reply to all relevant questions in any court in such manner that the accused persons would not face any difficulty and he has to remain present in the court so as to help the accused persons. 2. It was jointly submitted by learned counsel Mrs.Shilpa Shah, appearing for the petitioner, and Ms.K.M.Shah, appearing for respondent No.2-original complainant, that the parties have entered into a genuine settlement on account of the complainant realizing that there was no substance in the complaint which was filed CR.MA/1113220/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT in a hurry and out of emotional outburst, and this Court was required to quash the proceeding in the interest of justice in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana [92003) 4 SCC 675 in support of the submission that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel also relied upon recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] to emphasise the following pertinent observations made therein: "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 CR.MA/1113220/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." 3. In the facts of the present case, it was stated at the bar that genuineness of the compromise relied upon by the parties and absence of any inducement, duress or mala fide was verified by the Court on earlier occasion by personally calling the investigating officer, before whom a statement in consonance with the compromise was also independently recorded, as well as the original complainant. It was, therefore, submitted that this was one of those genuine cases in which the compromise was required to be accepted for terminating the criminal proceedings in the interest of justice, even if the Court may not accept as a general proposition that in all cases of the accused persons settling with the complainant, the Court must exercise its powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the deceased having died after eight years of married life and birth of three children out of wed-lock and the accused persons continuing to maintain the family and the complainant also being a near relative of the CR.MA/1113220/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT accused persons, the Court would be justified in exercising the extraordinary powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute with the direction that the F.I.R. registered as C.R.-I No.59 of 2008 with Dholera Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 306 read with section 114 of the I.P.C. shall stand quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- ( D.H.Waghela, J.) (KMG Thilake)