R/SCR.A/1277/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1277 of 2024
==========================================================
PUNJABHAI RAMBHAI ODEDARA
Versus
JAYESHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI BUSA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR SANJAY M AMIN(130) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS VRUNDA SHAH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 31/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] Learned advocate Ms. Shivangi Vyas states that she has
instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and
seeks permission to file her Vakalatnama, which is granted. Heard
learned advocates for the respective parties.
[2.0] RULE. Learned advocates waive service of note of Rule on
behalf of the respective respondents.
[3.0] 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.
[4.0] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), the petitioners have
Page 1 of 5
R/SCR.A/1277/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024
prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.I-61 of 2019
registered with Panch A Division Police Station, District
Jamnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420,
465, 467, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to
quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
[5.0] 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 17.01.2024 which is annexed with the petition. 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.
[6.0] Going through the papers of the petition, it appears that
impugned FIR came to be filed at the instance of respondent
No.1 – original complainant wherein it is alleged that the accused
persons by hatching conspiracy in furtherance of their common
intention by impostering themselves have tried to snatch the
agricultural land of Revenue Survey No.403 of the complainant
situated at village Dhuvav, District Jamnagar worth Rs.2 Crore
and in this regard impugned FIR came to be filed including the
Sub-Registrar. It also appears that for the said dispute, civil suit
being Regular Civil Suit No.55/2020 was also filed and
subsequently, as the dispute was settled, said civil suit came to
be decreed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar
Page 2 of 5
R/SCR.A/1277/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024
on 08.02.2020 pursuant to the consent terms arrived at between
the parties. It also appears that the impugned FIR came to be
quashed and set aside qua accused No.1 vide order dated
11.09.2020 passed by the coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc.
Application No.20143 of 2020. Now, the dispute is amicably
settled between the parties and hence, present petition deserves
consideration.
[7.0] It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by
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.
Page 3 of 5
R/SCR.A/1277/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024
[8.0] 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)
Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in
2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) as also considering the fact that now the
dispute is amicably settled and there is bleak chance of
conviction of the present petitioners at the end of trial, 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 the complainant has affirmed the fact
of settlement and filing of affidavit by him. Further, 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.. At
this stage 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 been
observed and held as under:
“(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
Page 4 of 5
R/SCR.A/1277/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024
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.”
[9.0] In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being
CR No.I-61 of 2019 registered with Panch A Division Police
Station, District Jamnagar as well as all consequential
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 5 of 5