MANISH MAGANBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the complaint registered with Ellis Bridge Police Station of Ahmedabad as C.R.No.I -627 of 1999 pursuant to which investigation is carried out, chargesheet is filed and Criminal Case No.5774 of 2005 is registered. The petition is pressed mainly on the ground that both the parties, i.e. the petitioners ? accused persons and the original complainant, have agreed to settle the dispute and they are now jointly begging the Court to quash the complaint as the matter is compounded between the parties and a settlement deed is executed on 22.10.2008. The chargesheet or the report of investigation is not annexed to the petition. F.I.R. dated 15.09.1999 at annexure A to the petition reveals that offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 327, 294A of IPC and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act have been alleged against the accused persons. The allegations include the allegation of 15 people attacking the complainant with weapons and causing injury to three persons. Even before the petition can be entertained for admission hearing and notice being issued to either of the respondents, learned counsel Mr.Pratik Barot has appeared for the original complainant and submitted that the petition may be allowed so as to quash the criminal case. Even learned A.P.P. Mr.Pandya submitted that the petition may be allowed.

(2.) THE petitioners have relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others V/s. State of Haryana and another, 2003 4 SCC 675 in support of the submission that High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is also observed in that judgment, on the basis of the judgment in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia V/s. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, that it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. In G.V. Rao V/s. L.H.V. Prasad, 2000 3 SCC 693, it is observed that there may be many reasons for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, where it takes years to conclude and, in that process, the parties lose their ?Syoung?? days in chasing their ?Scases?? in different courts.

(3.) IT is clear that criminal cases arising from matrimonial disputes stand on a different footing from other criminal cases. Later on in Madan Mohan Abbot V/s. State of Punjab, 2008 4 SCC 582, the Supreme Court emphasised that it would be advisable that in disputes, where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of 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. In the facts of that case, the dispute was found to be purely a personal one between two contesting parties and it arose out of extensive business dealing between them and there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused.