1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2016
  6. /
  7. January

Kantaben Manubhai Mehta & vs State Of Gujarat & 2

High Court Of Gujarat|03 May, 2016
1. This is a petition by the in-laws of the original complainant-Respondent No.3, herein, who have sought quashment of the complaint being I- C.R. No. 21 of 2015, Date: 21.05.2015, registered with Mahila Police Station, Surat City.
2. In the cognate matter filed by the husband of the original complainant-Respondent No.3, herein, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 9100 of 2016, this Court passed following order, today;
"1. The petitioner original accused has sought quashment of the complaint being I-C.R. No. 21/2015, Date: 21.05.2015, registered with Mahila Police Station, Surat City.
2. The parties out of their own Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Thu May 05 02:32:39 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/12626/2015 ORDER volition and mutual understanding have entered into a compromise. The Respondent No.3-Wife is present before this Court. She has also filed her affidavit stating, therein, that the settlement has been reduced into writing in the form of deed of divorce dated 22.03.2016 and a petition is also pending under the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Rajkot, for seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent.
3. On an inquiry by the learned APP, Respondent No.3-wife affirms the truthfulness of the contents of her affidavit and factum of parties having entered into a compromise. However, she states that the amount of alimony, which is mentioned in the compromise, has not been received by her, yet. But, as per the compromise agreement, once the decree of divorce is passed by the competent Court, same is to be paid to her. Learned Advocate, Mr. Barot, appearing for the petitioner urged that the amount of alimony has been deposited with the Family Court, Rajkot, by way of a cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, Nanpura, Surat Branch bearing No. 198323, Dated: 21.03.2016.
4. This Court also made inquiry from the Respondent No.3-wife.
5. In above view of the matter, here, it would be profitable to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.", (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein, at Paragraph-61, the Apex Court observed as under;
"61. 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 320 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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Thu May 05 02:32:39 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/12626/2015 ORDER 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
6. Further, bearing in mind the decision in the case of "JITENDRA RAGHUVANSHI & ORS. VS. BABITA RAGHUVANSHI & ANR.", (2013) 4 SCC 58, and in view of the nature of disputes being matrimonial in nature and when the parties have voluntarily chosen to Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Thu May 05 02:32:39 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/12626/2015 ORDER end all their grievances by mutual understanding, it is desirable that the Court show indulgence and invoke the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for bringing lasting peace between the parties.
7. Resultantly, the request for quashment is acceded to and the impugned complaint dated 21.05.2015 is QUASHED with all consequential proceedings.
8. So far as the petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, it is expected that the competent Court shall accept the same and shall put its seal on the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. A copy of this order shall be made available to both the sides for the same being produced before the Family Court, Rajkot, for speedy implementation of this order. DISPOSED OF, accordingly. Direct service is permitted."
3. In above view of the matter, since, this Court has already quashed the complaint impugned in this petition, this petition shall not survive and it stands DISPOSED OF, accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) UMESH Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Thu May 05 02:32:39 IST 2016
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.