1. Heard Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. B.S. Raju for the applicant, Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP for respondent No.1 and Mr. Jayprakash Umot, learned advocate for respondent No.2–original complainant.
2. By way of this application, the applicant who is arraigned as an accused in FIR being registered as CR No.II3239 of 2012 with Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(2) and 507 of the IPC.
3. It appears from the bare allegation that the original complainant who is working as Deputy General Manager in Airtel Company was engaged in a business transaction with the Company of the petitioner known as Sandesh Limited. It is alleged that on account of Sandesh having lodged some channel, Krishnabhai who happens to be executive of Sandesh Limited called up the complainant on 24.10.2012 and informed him that there is some fault in the internet line. It is the case of the original complainant that when the complainant and his colleague Sachin Baldevkumar Walia reached Sandesh House at Bodakdev at 21.40 hrs. on 24.10.2012, they were made to sit in the conference room on the fourth floor by Kishanbhai. It is further alleged that the applicant entered in the said conference room and started beating up the complainant and used certain words and stated that his link should not be closed even for a minute and having said thus kicked the complainant and pushed the complainant and his colleague out of the conference room. It appears from the record of this petition that on this bare allegation, the FIR came to be lodged before Vastrapur Police Station.
4. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mainly on the ground that the original complainant and the accused have strengthen their business relations and have amicably settled the issue. Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submitted that the contents of the FIR are even otherwise disputed and even the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the competent Court vide order dated 30.10.2012 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1727 of 2012. Mr. Raju has specifically invited attention of the Court to the photocopy of the affidavits which are filed by Ashish Omkar Tawakley and Sachin Baldev Kumar Walia. It is specifically averred in the said affidavits that after lodging of the FIR, highofficials of both the organizations have met and decided to amicably put an end to the matter at this stage and the deponents in both the affidavits have clearly stated that they are willing to withdraw the complaint.
5. Mr. Jayprakash Umot, learned advocate for respondent No.2 – original complainant states that the original complainant – respondent No.2 has amicably settled the issue and therefore, prayed that the prayers prayed for in the present application be granted. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 states that respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and he identifies him. Respondent No.2, who is identified by Mr. Jayprakash Umot, learned advocate for respondent No.2, states that what has been stated in the photocopy of the affidavit dated 5.11.2012 is true and correct and the matter has been amicably settled with the applicant.
6. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP for respondent No.1 submitted that as the offences alleged are committed under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(2) and 507 of the IPC and more particularly as some of the offences are non compoundable offences, this Court may not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. Mr. Raju has relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8989 of 2010 and allied matters dated 24.9.2012 as well as the decision in the case of Sandipbhai Gokaldas Shah Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.11396 of 2012 and has submitted that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases which are referred to in the judgment of Gian Singh (supra), the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are distinct and only because some of the offences are noncompoundable, the same does not curtail in any manner the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has in paras 52, 53, 54 and 57 has observed thus:
52. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided.
53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
54. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens wellbeing of society and it is not safe to leave the crimedoer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.
57. 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 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.”
8. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and considering the facts of this case and more particularly the fact that the original complainant has stated on oath that in view of the amicable solution arrived at, the complainant wishes to withdraw the complaint. In fact as recorded above, the original complainant is present in the Court in person and reiterates what has been stated in the aforesaid affidavit. In view of the above, even on examining the facts of the present case, it transpires that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra), even if the offence is noncompoundable as provided under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if in the opinion of the High Court, there is no chance of conviction and exercise of trial is futility then inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be exercised. As recorded above, as the original complainant has no objection and considering the allegations, even to the facts of the case in view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled the issue and the complainant desires to withdraw the complaint, the exercise of trial would be futility and therefore, this is a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the present application deserves to be allowed.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the FIR being CR No. II3239 of 2012 registered with Vastrapur Police Station is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Direct service is permitted.
mrpandya (R.M.CHHAYA, J.)