R/SCR.A/2584/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 2584 of 2024 ============================================== RAHUL PIRULAL GOD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ============================================== Appearance: MS. MOUSAMI K VALA(6923) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 14/07/2025 ORAL ORDER [1.0] By way of present quashing petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the CRPC, the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned FIR being Part-A- 11210004220986 of 2022 registered with Amroli Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) as well as under the provisions of the POCSO Act. [2.0] When the matter is called out, learned advocate for the petitioner is not present however, with the assistance of the learned APP, petition is taken up for hearing. [3.0] Present is a petition filed on the ground of settlement between the parties however, neither the learned advocate for the petitioner nor the learned advocate for the complainant have been appearing before this Court since the petition is filed. [4.0] At the outset, it is worth to mention that present petitioner is facing R/SCR.A/2584/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 charge under Section 363 of the IPC as well as under the POCSO Act. Said offences alleged against the petitioner are serious one and against the State and not against a person. The allegation is that the present petitioner – accused abducted the minor victim aged 15 years 7 months and 15 days under the false pretext of marrying her and thereafter committed the offences alleged against the petitioner. [5.0] Be that as it may, though the present petition is filed on the ground of settlement between the parties, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition on the ground of settlement as the offence is non- compoundable. [6.0] This Court is conscious of the fact that in non-compoundable offences also, powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (section 528 of the BNSS) can be exercised. Further, when the case is concerning non- compoundable offences against the State and as the learned APP has vehemently argued that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (section 528 of the BNSS), the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime besides observing and holding that heinous and serious offences could not be quashed even though a victim or victim’s family and the offender had settled the dispute as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. The word “crime” has been defined as “the breach and violation of public rights and duties which affect the whole community”. In such circumstances, a crime is an act deemed by law to be harmful to the society. Herein, the petitioner have taken undue advantage of their liberty and have tried to tamper with the evidence. Even, in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe and hold as under in paragraphs 48, 57, 58 and 61: R/SCR.A/2584/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 “48. While parting with this part, it appears necessary to add that the settlement or compromise must satisfy the conscience of the court. The settlement must be just and fair besides being free from the undue pressure, the court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution. 57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. 58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed. Page 3 of 7 R/SCR.A/2584/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” It is also appropriate to refer to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramji Lal Bairwa vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2025) 5 SCC 117 wherein it is observed and held in paragraph No.36 as under: R/SCR.A/2584/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 “36. Thus, in unambiguous terms this Court held that before exercising the power under Section 482 CrPC the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime besides observing and holding that heinous and serious offences could not be quashed even though a victim or victim’s family and the offender had settled the dispute. This Court held that such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. Having understood the position of law on the second question that it is the bounden duty of the court concerned to consider whether the compromise is just and fair besides being free from undue pressure we will proceed to consider the matter further.“ Thus, considering the larger public interest of the society, no case is made out to entertain the present petition. In Criminal Jurisprudence, the position of the complainant is only that of the informant. Once an FIR and/or criminal complaint is lodged and a criminal case is started by the State, it becomes a matter between the State and the accused. The State has a duty to ensure that law and order is maintained in society. It is for the state to prosecute offenders. In case of grave and serious non- compoundable offences which impact society, the informant and/or complainant only has the right of hearing, to the extent of ensuring that justice is done by conviction and punishment of the offender. [7.0] The Court is duty bound to scrutinize the gravity of allegation and nature of offence and their ramifications on the public order and societal welfare. This judicial responsibility is accentuated in cases involving heinous or egregious offences, where the broader societal interest outweighs private settlements. If the present petition which is filed on the ground of settlement between the parties is allowed, it would be against the moral and interest of the society. [8.0] Further, while exercising the powers of quashing the Court has to consider the timing of the settlement. As discussed above, offence alleged against the present petitioner is under Section 363 of the IPC and under the POCSO Act and present petition is filed on the ground of settlement. Even otherwise timing is not proper as after after considerable time gap and passage of more than 3 years when the trial is under R/SCR.A/2584/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 progress and recording of evidence is going on, present petition is filed. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, as offence is non-compoundable, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion under Section 482 of the CrPC (section 528 of the BNSS) in favour of the petitioner. [9.0] Even, merely because in future there is chance of witness turning hostile due to settlement is not a ground to allow the present petition. The prosecution has ample power to put leading question to the witness and if the testimony of such witnesses if evidences lend corroboration with other reliable evidence produced on record and considering the attending circumstances, Court may appreciate the evidence. This is very early stage to come to conclusion that if the witnesses turn hostile then it would be a futile exercise on the part of the Court to continue with such proceeding. [10.0] It is pertinent to note that orders quashing FIRs and/or complaints relating to grave and serious offences only on the basis of an agreement with the complainant, would set a dangerous precedent, where complaints would be lodged for oblique reasons, with a view to extract money from the accused. Furthermore, financially strong offenders would go scot free, even in cases of grave and serious offences such as murder, rape, bride burning etc. by buying off informants/complainants and settling with them. The criminal justice system is not merely a forum for resolving interpersonal disputes, it embodies the sovereign obligation of the State to safeguard the fundamental rights of its citizens, including the protection of life, liberty and property. In adjudicating petitions seeking R/SCR.A/2584/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a purported compromise between the parties, the Court must transcend the immediate assertions of harmony. While the absence of present grievances between parties may be a material consideration, it cannot be the determinative criterion. The Court is duty bound to scrutinize the gravity of allegation and nature of offence and their ramifications on the public order and societal welfare. This judicial responsibility is accentuated in cases involving heinous or egregious offences, where the broader societal interest outweighs private settlement more particularly considering the gravity of offence and the fact that the State is duty bound to protect the interest of the Society and even considering the objection raised by the learned APP, no case is made out to entertain the present petition. [11.0] In wake of aforesaid discussion, present petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and learned trial Court shall decide the trial of the case on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) ANKIT JANSARI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 15/07/2025 16:14:15