1. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicant seeks quashing of the first information report registered vide Vadodara Taluka Police Station I-C.R. No.86/2009 qua the present applicant.
2. The respondent No.2 herein has lodged the above referred first information report against the applicant herein alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 447, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, section 25-C of the Arms Act and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
3. Earlier, vide an order dated 11th September, 2009, after hearing the parties at length, the court had by a reasoned order, granted interim relief in favour of the applicant herein and stayed the investigation pursuant to the first information report in question qua the applicant herein.
4. Today, Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 - first informant has placed on record an affidavit made by the first informant stating that subsequently, the parties have entered into a compromise and that the first informant had lodged the first information report in question on account of mistake. It is further stated that the applicant herein is not, in any manner, involved in the alleged incident which had taken place. That the incident in question had happened in respect of land belonging to Ranchhod Deva Mali and that the applicant herein is not related to the said person or land in any manner. It is categorically stated that the applicant herein was not present at the time of the incident nor has he instigated anyone to commit the offence in question. It is also categorically averred that the first informant had wrongly given the name of the applicant herein on account of instigation by other people and that having realised his mistake, he has amicably settled the matter with the applicant herein on account of intervention of relatives, friends and elderly persons. It is, accordingly, stated that the first informant does not desire to prosecute the applicant herein and has requested that the first information report be quashed qua the applicant herein.
5. Mr.
H.N. Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant herein has submitted that in the light of the above referred affidavit filed by the second respondent, the first information report is required to be quashed. It is submitted that in the light of the reasons given in the order dated 11th September, 2009, it is apparent that even otherwise there is no involvement of the applicant herein in the commission of the offence alleged. Under the circumstances, this is a fit case for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code for quashing the first information report in question.
6. Mr.
Hardik Dave, learned advocate for the second respondent has reiterated what is stated by the learned advocate for the applicant and has submitted that in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the second respondent has no objection if the first information report is quashed qua the present applicant.
7. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case whereby the High Court had declined the prayer for quashing of the prosecution for the offences punishable under sections 379, 406, 409, 418, 506/34 IPC despite a compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused. The High Court had taken the view that since the offence punishable under section 406 was not compoundable, the settlement between the parties could not be recognised nor the pending proceedings quashed. The court summed up the approach to be adopted in such cases in the following words:
"6.
We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.
7. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs 250 which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the latter case. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case direct that FIR No. 155 dated 17-11-2001 PS Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed."
8. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677 where relying upon the decision in B.S.
Joshi, the Supreme Court took note of the settlement arrived at between the parties and quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with section 120-B IPC and held that since the criminal proceedings had the overtone of a civil dispute which had been amicably settled between the parties, it was a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of the criminal proceedings since the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.
9. In Manoj Sharma vs.
State, (2008) 16 SCC 1 the Supreme Court observed thus:
"8.
In our view, the High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The 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. It is no doubt true that the first information report was the basis of the investigation by the police authorities, but the dispute between 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. ...
9. As we have indicated hereinbefore, the exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC of Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary to be exercised in the facts of each case. In the facts of this case we are of the view that continuing with the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility."
10. In Shiji vs. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705, the Supreme Court after referring to its earlier decisions as well as the above referred decisions held thus:
"17.
It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 CrPC on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 CrPC."
11. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the above referred decisions, it is apparent that the parties herein have amicably settled the dispute between them. Considering the nature of the allegations made in the first information report, in the light of the affidavit filed by the first informant, it is apparent that even otherwise, there is no involvement of the applicant herein in the offence in question. Under the circumstances, in the light of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, it is apparent that even if the prosecution is permitted to continue, there are hardly any chances of an ultimate conviction insofar as the applicant herein is concerned. Continuance of the proceedings against the applicant herein would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of the court. The applicant is, therefore, justified in invoking the inherent powers of this court under section 482 of the Code.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The first information report registered vide Vadodara Taluka Police Station I-C.R. No.86/2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Direct Service is permitted.
( Harsha Devani, J. ) hki Top