SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Saurabji Kunvarji Thakor vs State Of Gujarat on 12 March, 2019

R/CR.MA/3591/2019 ORDER




MR. BHAVIK P SHAH(6391) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

Date : 12/03/2019

1. This Court on 05.03.2019 passed the following

1. Criminal Misc. Application No. 3184 of 2019
is filed, seeking quashment of the FIR being I-
C.R.No. 85/2018, registered with Sabarmati
Police Station, Ahmedabad, under Sections 498A,
294B, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,

2. Criminal Misc. Application No. 3591 of 2019
is filed, seeking quashment of the FIR being
II-C.R. No.3280/2018, registered with the very
police Station under Sections 294(B), 506(1),
and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and
2(5-1) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1985.

3. In both the matters, the parties are
present, stating before this Court that, with
the intervention of the elder on both the
sides, they have chosen to settle all their
disputes and nothing remains to be prosecuted.

4. The relatives on both the sides are also

Page 1 of 6

R/CR.MA/3591/2019 ORDER

5. The original complainant, namely Dakshaben
Anil Thakor, in I-C.R. No. 85/2018 is present
before this Court and she has stated that she
has chosen to give back gold ornaments to her
in-laws. She also has received what was given
by her parents. She does not claim permanent
alimony and no amount has been given towards
the same. Although, parents on both the sides
insist on they are being aware of the
entitlement of the girl for permanent alimony
and they are also made aware of the same by
this Court, they have chosen not to insist on
permanent alimony.

6. Let the IO VERIFY the genuineness of the
compromise and report to this Court, on the
next date. S.O. 12TH MARCH. 2019.”

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for
the respondent-State.

3. This is a petition under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking
quashment of the FIR being II-C.R. No.3280/2018,
registered with Sabarmati Police Station,
Ahmedabad under Sections 294(B), 506(1) and 114
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)

(r) and 2(5-a) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

4. The petitioner and the original complainant-
respondent No.2 have settled their disputes due
to the intervention of the elders and community
leaders. The complainant has chosen to give back
old ornaments to her in-laws and she also has

Page 2 of 6
R/CR.MA/3591/2019 ORDER

received what was given by her parents and she
does not claim permanent alimony and no amount
has been given towards the same. For lasting
peace, they have chosen to end all their
disputes. The parties are present before this
Court. This Court has also confirmed through the
IO, who is present, as to whether, he has any
objection to this Court acceding to their

5. Learned APP on instructions received from the
concerned Investigating Officer has submitted
that she has no objection if the request to quash
the FIR is being granted and there is no question
mark with regard to genuineness of this mater,
and therefore, she has further urged that the
Court may exercise its discretion without any
objection on the part of the State.

6. Having thus heard both the sides, 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

Page 3 of 6
R/CR.MA/3591/2019 ORDER

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
footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile,
civil, partnership or such like

Page 4 of 6
R/CR.MA/3591/2019 ORDER

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.”

7. Further, bearing in mind the decision in the
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 end all their grievances by mutual
understanding, it is desirable that the Court

Page 5 of 6
R/CR.MA/3591/2019 ORDER

show indulgence and invoke the powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
bringing lasting peace between the parties.

8. In the result, this application is allowed
and the impugned FIR being II-C.R. No.3280/2018,
registered with Sabarmati Police Station,
Ahmedabad is QUASHED with all consequential

9. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct
service is permitted.


Page 6 of 6

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation