Rule.
Mr. D. K. Puj, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the second respondent and Mr. K. P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the first respondent.
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 Navrangpura Police Station I - C. R. No.77/2008 for the offences punishable under sections 472, 323, 506(1), 294(b) and 11 of the Indian Penal Code.
The second respondent herein has lodged the above referred first information report alleging commission of the offences noted hereinabove.
Mr.
Satish Patel, learned advocate for the applicants has invited attention to the settlement arrived at between the parties, a copy of whereof is annexed at Annexure "C" to the application, to submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them. Attention was also invited to the affidavit made by the respondent No.2 - Pragnesh Hariprasad Parikh wherein it is stated that in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he agrees to give his consent for quashing the criminal cases enumerated thereunder. The first information report registered vide Navrangpura Police Station I - C.R. No.77/2008 is mentioned at serial No.2. It was, accordingly, submitted that the dispute involved in the present case being in the nature of a private dispute and the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them, the first information report is required to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.
Mr.
D. K. Puj, learned advocate for the second respondent states that the said respondent has no objection if the first information report in question is quashed.
In Madan Mohan Abbot v. 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."
To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677 where relying upon the decision in B.S. Joshi8, 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.
In Manoj Sharma v. 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."
In Shiji v. 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."
Coming to the case at hand, it is apparent that this is a case which has its origin in a civil dispute between the parties, which dispute has, it appears, been resolved by them. That being so, continuance of the prosecution will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. In the light of the principles propounded in the above referred decisions, section 482 of the Code can is such circumstances, be justifiably invoked to prevent the abuse of process of law and thereby prevent a wasteful exercise by the courts below.
A perusal of the first information report in question indicates that the dispute involved therein is more in the nature of a civil dispute. Subsequently the parties have resolved the dispute pursuant to which, the first informant has filed the above referred affidavit dated 18.4.2012 wherein it has been categorically averred that he has agreed to give his consent for quashing of the first information report in question. Under the circumstances, when the parties have settled the matter, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting the prosecution to continue as there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise of futility. In the circumstances, in the light of the principles enunciated in the above decision, this is a fit case for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code.
For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The first information report registered vide Navrangpura Police Station I - C. R. No.77/2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar* Top