CR.MA/96720/2008 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 967 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= RAGHUBHAI SOMABHAI AJARA -IFS & 3 - Applicant(s) Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR BB NAIK for Applicant(s) : 1 - 4.MS BELA A PRAJAPATI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 4. MS FALGUNI PATEL, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2, MR DP JOSHI for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Date : 10/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners – ori. accused have filed this petition under Section 482 of the CR.MA/96720/2008 2/7 JUDGMENT Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report lodged with Sanand Police Station recorded as CR-II No.132 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the consequential charge-sheet filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Sanand which is recorded as Charge Sheet-II No.24 of 2007. 2. This Court has issued notice on 17.4.2008 and ad-interim relief staying further proceedings of Criminal Case No.263 of 2007 pending before the learned JMFC, Sanand, was granted. 3. During the pendency of this petition before the Court, the parties have settled the dispute, on the basis of which, the FIR was CR.MA/96720/2008 3/7 JUDGMENT filed and consequential charge-sheet and further proceedings were initiated. An affidavit duly sworn by the ori. complainant / present respondent No.3 is placed on record. The complainant is also present before the Court. The complainant is identified by his advocate Mr. D.P.Joshi. 4. Mr. B.B.Naik, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that since the dispute has been amicably settled and peace prevails in the village, no useful purpose will be served to continue the criminal proceedings. He has, therefore, requested the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure and to quash set aside the said complaint. 5. In support of his submissions Mr.Naik relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003)4 CR.MA/96720/2008 4/7 JUDGMENT SCC 675 and Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, reported in 2008(14) SCALE 44. 6. Mr. D.P.Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 – ori. complainant has submitted that the dispute has been settled and the complainant has no objection if the FIR lodged on the basis of the complaint is quashed and set aside. 7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the averments made in the petition as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred two judgments, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served to continue criminal proceedings and this is the fit case where the Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and quash and set aside the complaint. CR.MA/96720/2008 5/7 JUDGMENT 8. As a matter of fact, in Manoj Sharma (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that High Court is vested with inherent powers to quash any criminal proceeding or First Information Report or complaint whether it be compoundable or not. The ultimate exercise of discretion under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution is with the Court which has to exercise such jurisdiction in the facts of each case. The Court further observed that the Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The Court further observed that 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. The First Information Report was the basis of the investigation by the Police authorities, but the dispute between CR.MA/96720/2008 6/7 JUDGMENT 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. The Court on the facts of the case found that continuing with the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. The Court accordingly allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and quashed the criminal proceedings pending before learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in FIR No.50 of 1997 dated 31.1.1997. 9. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred two judgments and considering the facts of the present case as well as the affidavit filed by the complainant – present respondent No.3 and since he is present in the Court and his advocate has confirmed the fact of settlement, the Court hereby grants prayer CR.MA/96720/2008 7/7 JUDGMENT made in the present petition and set aside the FIR lodged with Sanand Police Station recorded as CR-II No.132 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the consequential charge-sheet filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Sanand which is recorded as Charge Sheet-II No.24 of 2007. 10. This petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. (K. A. PUJ, J) kks