CR.MA/2312/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 2312 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================= = 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 ? ========================================= = JAYABEN D/O HIMMATBHAI MULJI BHAI RATHOD & 1 - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance : MS HETVI H SANCHETI for Petitioner No.1. MR NIGAM R SHUKLA for Petitioner No. 2. MR LB DABHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 25/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr.L.B. Dabhi learned Additional Public Prosecutor CR.MA/2312/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent State of Gujarat. 2. Having regard to the facts of the case, with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today. 3. By this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the petitioners have prayed to quash the first information report being Limdi Police Station I C.R. No.118 of 2005 and all proceedings incidental thereto. 4. The petitioner No.1 is the original complainant and the petitioner No.2 is the original accused. 5. The facts stated briefly are that the petitioner No.1 had lodged the aforesaid first information report against the petitioner No.2 on 11th February, 2005, alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 366, 376(4), 201, 342, 506(2) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(11), 3(2), 5 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act. 6. Subsequently, due to intervention of prominent citizens of Limdi town, it appears that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute outside the Court whereby the petitioner No.1 and her family members have agreed to withdraw the criminal complaint. However, the offences alleged against the petitioner No.2 being non- CR.MA/2312/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT compoundable in the nature, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present petition, seeking quashment of the complaint in question. 7. This Court has heard Ms. Hetvi Sancheti learned Advocate for petitioner No.1, Mr. Nigam Shukla learned Advocate for petitioner No.2 and Mr.L.B. Dabhi learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, State of Gujarat. 8. Both the learned Advocates for the petitioners No.1 and 2 have jointly submitted that as the parties have amicably settled the dispute and looking to the peculiar facts of the case, the first information report in question be quashed in the interest of justice. 9. Considering the allegations made in the complaint, as the petitioner No.1 was personally present before this Court, this Court had personally ascertained the wish of the petitioner No.1 in the chamber. 10. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699, considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, the Supreme Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High CR.MA/2312/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. 11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others ((1988) 1 SCC 692), the Supreme Court held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings. 12. In the facts of the present case, undoubtedly the offences alleged are un-compoundable in nature. However in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and considering the averments made in the petition, this Court is of the view that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak. Besides if the proceedings are put to an end the petitioner No.1 complainant would be able to move ahead and lead a normal life. Pendency of the proceedings may unnecessarily prevent her from CR.MA/2312/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT settling down early in life. In the circumstances, upon an overall view of the matter and in the special facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would best be served if the first information report in question is quashed. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly allowed. The First Information Report being Limdi Police Station I Crime Register No.118 of 2005 and all proceedings incidental thereto are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. [HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar*