In a significant legal development, the Gujarat High Court has delivered a landmark judgment regarding the quashing of FIR CR No.11197005230758 of 2023 registered with Vadodara Taluka Police Station. The case, involving a mutual settlement between the parties, has been resolved amicably. This judgment sets a precedent in understanding the power under Section 482 of the CrPC and the principles governing such decisions in criminal proceedings.
Arguments
- Learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi D. Raval appeared on behalf of the original complainant.
- She sought permission to file her Vakalatnama, which was granted.
Analysis
- The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is wide and requires caution in its exercise.
- The original complainant has filed an Affidavit stating mutual settlement and no objection to quash the proceedings.
- The dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably as stated by learned advocates on both sides.
- The impugned FIR was filed based on allegations of abuse and threats by the accused towards the complainant.
- The power conferred by the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC is considered in this case.
- The Court decides to quash the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC.
- Merely abusive or obscene words may not be enough to constitute an offense under Section 294(b) of the IPC.
- The Court must ensure its decision is based on sound principles and should not stifle a legitimate prosecution.
- The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision when facts are incomplete and issues are of magnitude without sufficient material.
- The continuation of trial based on mutual settlement would be futile in this case.
- There is no strict rule for when the High Court may quash proceedings, as per Central Bureau of Investigation vs Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr. case.
- Various principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases such as Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
- The dispute has been amicably settled, and further criminal proceedings would cause unnecessary harassment.
- The test for obscenity under Section 294(b) of IPC is whether the matter charged as obscenity tends to deprave and corrupt those susceptible to immoral influences.
- Reference to the decision in N.S. Madhanagopal & Anr. vs K. Lalitha for clarification on obscenity.
- In the case of Mohammad Wajid and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., it is stated that criminal intimidation must prove the accused had the intent to cause alarm.
- Highlighting the need for strict interpretation of penal statutes according to the plain meaning of the words used.
- Referring to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for the categories of cases where the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised to prevent abuse of the court process.
- Allegations in the FIR or complaint are absurd and inherently improbable
- No serious injury sustained by the respondent or witness
- Express legal bar engrafted in the provisions of the Code
- Manifest mala fide in the criminal proceeding
Decision
- The impugned FIR CR No.11197005230758 of 2023 registered with Vadodara Taluka Police Station, District Vadodara is quashed and set aside for the petitioner.
- All consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance of the said FIR are also quashed as they pertain to the petitioner.
- If the petitioner is currently in jail, the jail authority is directed to release the petitioner immediately, unless required for any other case.
- The rule is made absolute only to the extent of quashing the FIR and related proceedings for the petitioner.
- Direct service is permitted for this order.
Case Title: JIGNESHBHAI BAPULAL PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/8968/2024
