In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, the charges in the case of Vikram Vibhabhai Jallu & Ors. v. Accused No.1 & Accused No.2 have been quashed. The dispute stemming from a misunderstanding over a sand lease led to Section 307 of IPC being invoked initially, but a settlement has now been reached. The resolution aims to maintain peace and orderly business relations between the parties involved. This case highlights the importance of amicable settlements in legal proceedings.
Facts
- Accused No.1 was armed with an iron pipe and Accused No.2 with a wooden stick during the alleged assault.
- The witnesses were assaulted and sustained injuries resulting in fractures in hands and legs.
- Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 are alleged to have threatened the witnesses’ lives during the incident.
- Prayers have been made to quash and set aside the impugned order framing the charges.
- The charge under Section 307 of the IPC is being contested by the applicants.
- Dispute arose over a misunderstanding regarding a sand lease.
- Accused allegedly dashed a motor cycle with witnesses on it, leading to charges under Sections 307 and 149 of IPC.
- Both sides have resolved the dispute amicably and are seeking to compound the offences.
- Witnesses and complainant have filed Affidavits of settlement, expressing no objection to quashing the charge.
Arguments
- Learned Advocate Ms. Shweta Lodha appearing for the complainant and the victims affirms the fact of settlement of dispute
- Settlement of dispute advanced by learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat appearing for the applicants acknowledged
- Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Mehta submitted that any proceedings should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court
- Complainant Vikram Vibhabhai Jallu and witnesses Chintan Bhikhabhai Kangad and Kishan Khengarbhai Dangar filed individual Affidavits stating the settlement was arrived at through the intervention of responsible community elders
- Purpose of settlement was to maintain peace and order in the locality and ensure business relations continue between the parties
Analysis
- Misunderstanding regarding business led to a complaint with Section 307 IPC invoked but no injury with the vehicle in question.
- Section 324 of IPC applicable for voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon or means.
- High Court to assess fairness and interest of justice in continuing criminal proceedings post settlement and compromise.
- No basis for quashing proceedings involving special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act.
- High Court to ensure Section 307 IPC inclusion is based on evidence collected by prosecution to lead to framing charges.
- High Court must consider nature and gravity of the crime before quashing proceedings.
- Offences with civil or personal nature can be quashed post settlement to avoid oppression and prejudice to the accused.
- The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings is different from the power to compound offences under Section 320 of the Code.
- The inherent power of the High Court has no statutory limitation and must be exercised to secure justice or prevent abuse of court processes.
- Whether a criminal proceeding can be quashed due to a settlement between the parties depends on the facts of each case.
- Heinous offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be quashed even if the victim and offender reach a settlement.
- The decision in the case of Laxmi Narayan and Others outlines the types of offences that should not be quashed based on compromise.
- Serious offences with a significant impact on society should not be quashed through Section 482 powers, even if there is a settlement between the parties.
- Accused did not possess or use a weapon for stabbing
- Weapon alleged to be used was an iron pipe and wooden sticks
- Section 324 of IPC not applicable in this case
Decision
- The impugned order framing the charge has been quashed and set aside.
- The applicants have been acquitted.
- Section 325 of IPC deals with punishment for causing grievous hurt.
- The application has been allowed.
- Rule is made absolute with the above decisions.
Case Title: DEEPAK NARAYANBHAI SUVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.RA/1013/2023
