R/CR.MA/1976/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/02/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 1976 of 2024
==========================================================
RAKESH RANCHHODBHAI BHARWAD & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR IH SYED, SR. ADVOCATE with MR SHAAN M MUNSHAW(10825) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1,2,3,4
MR VISHRUT BHANDARI(11297) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ASMITA PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 29/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] RULE. Learned advocates waive service of note of rule on
behalf of the respective respondents.
[2.0] Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both
the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved
amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
[3.0] By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), the
petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR
No.11191035221060 of 2022 registered with Naroda Police
Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punisable under
Sections 323, 325, 452, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860; under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act and
Page 1 of 6
R/CR.MA/1976/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/02/2024
under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for
short “Atrocity Act”) and to quash all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
[4.0] Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted
that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have
settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual
settlement, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit
dated 12.01.2024 which is produced with the petition at
Annexure-C. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has
categorically stated that the dispute with the petitioners has
been resolved amicably and that he has no objection, if the
present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no
surviving grievance between them.
[5.0] Going through the record it appears that the impugned FIR
was initially filed by the respondent No.2 for the offences under
Sections 325 and 452 of the IPC came to be added vide section
addition report dated 17.10.2022. It is alleged in the FIR that the
accused persons trespassed in the hotel of the complainant and
quarreled with the complainant and during the scuffle witness
Mukeshsinh was assaulted with wooden log by the accused
persons and accused No.4 – petitioner No.4 herein hurled abuses
with reference to the caste of the complainant and in this regard
charge-sheet came to be filed.
[6.0] It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by
Page 2 of 6
R/CR.MA/1976/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/02/2024
the High Court under section 482 of the CrPC is warranted. It is
true that the powers under Section 482 of the Code are very
wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution
in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision
in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The
inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State
should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a
case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so
when the evidence has not been collected and produced before
the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without
sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid
down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any
stage as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava,
IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.
[7.0] Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the
principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303,
(ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008)
4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj
Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v)
Page 3 of 6
R/CR.MA/1976/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/02/2024
Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in
2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) as also considering the fact that
impugned FIR is filed in connection with a scuffle that took place
between the complainant and the accused persons and in which
one witness viz. Mukeshsinh was assaulted and castiest slur was
administered by the accused No.4 against the caste of
complainant but now the dispute having been settled and the
complainant has appeared in person before this Court and
affirmed the factum of settlement affidavit having been filed by
him, in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of
criminal proceedings against the present petitioners in relation
to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the
petitioners. Further, even there is no bar to exercise power under
Section 482 of the CrPC even in the case registered under the
Special Act. Hence, the continuance of trial pursuant to the
mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a
futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be
appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all
consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..
[7.1] Insofar as offences under Sections 325 and 323 of the IPC
are concerned, no any serious injury is sustained either by the
complainant or the witness and therefore also, present petition
deserves consideration. It is appropriate to refer to the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs.
Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein it has
Page 4 of 6
R/CR.MA/1976/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/02/2024
been observed and held as under:
“(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party;
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
[7.2] Insofar as offence under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC
is concerned, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid and Anr. v. State of U.P.
and Ors. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624: 2023 INSC 683.
Even, the learned advocate for the complainant has submitted
that the complainant is ready and willing to surrender whatever
amount he has received towards compensation under the
benevolent scheme of the government and that he will not claim
any such amount in future.
[8.0] In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being
CR No.11191035221060 of 2022 registered with Naroda Police
Station, Ahmedabad City as well as all consequential
Page 5 of 6
R/CR.MA/1976/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/02/2024
proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed
and set aside qua the petitioners herein. If the petitioners are in
jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the
petitioners forthwith, if not required in connection with any
other case. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only.
Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
Page 6 of 6