JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

                        [2012] 6 S.C.R. 534


A               JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA
                                v.
                 STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
                (Criminal Appeal No.1040 of 2012)
                           JULY 20, 2012
B
          [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.)

        Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Code of
  Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.482 and 320/- Dispute over
C disposal of plot/property - Averments in FIR disclosing
  offences punishable ulss. 467, 468, 471, 420 and 1208 /PC
  against accused-appellant and two other accused - Prayer for
  quashing of criminal proceedings having regard to settlement
  between respondent no. 2-complainant and appellant - Held:
D In the case on hand, irrespective of the earlier dispute between
  the parties; subsequently the appellant swore an affidavit with
  bona fide intention securing right, title and interest in favour
  of respondent no.2 - Further, in view of settlement arrived at
  between respondent no.2 and appellant, there is no chance
E of recording a conviction of appellant - Inasmuch as the
  matter has not reached the stage of trial, the High Court, by
  exercising the inherent power u/s.482 CrPC even in offences
  which are not compoundable under s.320 CrPC, may quash
  t/1e prosecution - By applying the same analogy and in order
F to do complete justice u/Artic/e 142 of the Constitution, the
  terms of settlement insofar as the appellant is concerned are
  accepted - Impugned FIR accordingly quashed qua the
  appellant - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.467, 468, 471, 420 and
  1208.

G        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Exercise of
    power under -Scope - Held: The power under s. 482 CrPC has
    to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the High
    Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that

H                                534
  JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF              535
             GUJARAT AND ANR.
continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse   A
of the process of law.

    Respondent No. 2 was the President of Plot Owners'
Association. Certain plots of the said Association were
allegedly disposed of illegally by accused No.1 by             8
creating false/forged documents in favour of accused
No.2 who, in turn, sold the same to accused no.3 (the
appellant). Respondent No.2 lodged FIR alleging
collusion of the three accused persons in disposing of
the plots. The averments in the FIR disclosed the
offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 4'71, 420         C
and 120-B of IPC. Aggrieved, the appellant filed
application under Section 482, CrPC before the High
Court to quash and set aside the said FIR. The High
Court dismissed the application.
                                                               D
    The instant appeal was filed challenging the or:der of
the High Court. However subsequently, before the
Supreme Court, respondent no·. 2 filed a counter affidav1t
stating that subsequent to filing of the appeal, the
appellant had approached respondent no.2 to show his E
bona tides that he himself was a victim in the said
transactions and was cheated by accused no.1 and 2;
that the appellant further informed respondent no.2 that
he shall not claim any right, title, interest over the various
plots belonging to the association; that the appellant has F
given an affidavit to respondent no.2 that he will withdraw
the civil suit for specific performance and declaration,
accepting that the appellant did not have any legal right,
possession, title or claim over the various plots in issue
as they were sold to him by accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the G
basis of forged documents and that considering the
bonafide intention of the appellant he has no objection if
the FIR is quashed qua the appellant

    The question for consideration before this Court was
                                                               H
    536      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A that inasmuch as all the alleged offences are not
  compoundable offences under Section 320 CrPC (except
  Section 420 IPC that too with the permission of the Court
  before which any prosecution for such offence is
  pending), whether it would be possible to quash the FIR
B by the High Court under Section 482, CrPC' or by this
  Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
  Constitution.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

C        HELD: In the case on hand, irrespective of the earlier
    dispute between Respondent No. 2- the complainant and
    the appellant being Accused No. 3 as well as Accused
    Nos. 1 and 2 subsequently and after getting all the
    materials, relevant details etc., the appellant (Accused No.
D   3) sworn an affidavit with bona fide intention securing the
    right, title and interest in favour of Respondent No.2-
    complainant. In such bona fide circumstances, the power
    under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised. Further, in
    view of the settlement arrived at between Respondent
E   No. 2-the complainant and the appellant (Accused No. 3),
    there is no chance of recording a conviction insofar as
    the present appellant is concerned and the entire exercise
    of trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. Inasmuch
    as the matter has not reached the stage of trial, the High
F   Court, by exercising the inherent power under Section
    482 CrPC even in offences which are not compoundable
    under Section 320, may quash the prosecution. However,
    the power under Section 482 has to be exercised
    sparingly and only in cases where the High Court is, for
G   reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that
    continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an
    abuse of the process of law. In other words, the exercise
    of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only
    in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result
    in the abuse of the process of law. In the light of these
H
 . JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF             537
              GUJARAT AND ANR.
principles, inasmuch as Respondent No. 2-the                   A
Complainant has filed an affidavit highlighting the stand
taken by the appellant (Accused No. 3) during the
pendency of the appeal before this Court and the terms
of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying
the same analogy and in order to do complete justice           B
under Article 142 of the Constitution, the terms of
settlement insofar as the appellant (Accused No. 3) is
concerned are accepted. In view of the same, the
impugned FIR for offences punishable under Sections
467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC is quashed insofar         c
as the appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned. [Paras 9,
10, 11] [543-D-H; 544-A-E]

    Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. v. Radhika and Anr. (2011) 10
sec 705 - relied on.
                                                               D
                    Case Law Reference:
    (2011) 10 sec 105        relied on            Para 8, 9
    CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1040 of 2012.                                              E

    From the Judgment & Order dated 18.07.2011 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application
No. 3999 of 2011.

    L. Nageshwar Rao, Pradhuman Gohil, Vikas Singh, Charu      F
Mathur, S. Hari Haran for the Appellant.

    S.8. Upadhyay, Sharmila Upadhyay, Pawan Kishor Singh,
Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Hemantika Wahi, Jesal for the
Respondents.                                                   G
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

    2. This appeal is filed against the impugned order dated   H
    538      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012) 6 S.C.R.


A 18.07 .2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
  in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3999 of 2011 whereby the
  High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant
  herein (original Accused No. 3) under Section 482 of the Code
  of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') to quash and
B set aside the impugned FIR No. 45 of 2011 dated 12.03.2011
  lodged by Vipulbhai Harshadbhai Raja, Respondent No. 2
  herein with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences
  punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of
  the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC').
c         3. Brief facts:

       (i) Respondent No. 2 herein is the President of Shri Supan
  Plot Owners' Association situated at Village Nidhrad, Sanand,
  Ahmedabad. Certain plots of the said Association were
D disposed of illegally by creating false/forged documents by one
  Pravinbhai Gangashankar RavaLJoriginal Accused No.1) in
  favour of one Janakben Pravinchandra Raval (original Accused
  No.2) who, in turn, sold the same to one Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh
  Rana, the appellant herein (original Accused No. 3).
E
       (ii) Pursuant to the same, Respondent No. 2 herein lodged
  FIR No. 45 of 2011 dated 12.03.2011 alleging about the sheer
  collusion of all the three above named accused persons in
  disposing of the plots.

F        (iii) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the
    appellant herein (Accused No.3) preferred an application under
    Section 482 of the Code before the High Court to quash and
    set aside the said FIR. The High Court, by impugned order
    dated 18.07.2011, dismissed the same.
G
        (iv) Challenging the said order of the High Court, the
    appellant has filed the above appeal by way of special leave
    before this Court.

       4. Heard Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel
H for the appellant, Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel for
  JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF                     539
    GUJARAT AND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
respondent No.1-State of Gujarat _and Mr. S.B. Upadhyay,               A
learned senior counsel for Respondent No.2 - the
Complainant.

     5. In view of the subsequent development, as narrated in
the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 in this Court,
                                                                       B
there is no need to traverse all the factual details about the
allegations and the ultimate order passed by the High Court
dismissing the application filed by the appellant herein under
Section 482 of the Code. The following averments in the counter
affidavit are relevant for disposal of the above appeal which          C
reads as under:

    "5. That after the filing of the present special leave petition,
    the petitioner to show his bona fides and to prove that he
    himself is a victim has approached the answering
    respondent. The answering respondent was informed by               D
    the petitioner that the petitioner himself got cheated by
    Pravinbhai Gangashanker Raval and Janakben
    Pravinchandra Raval (accused Nos. 1 & 2 in the instant
    case FIR No. 45/2011). The petitioner further informed the
    answering respondent that he shall not claim any right, title,     E
    interest over the various plots belonging to the association
    and accordingly he has no right or title over the same.

    6. The petitioner further submitted that he was also
    cheated by the other accused persons who sold the
    properties being subject the matter of dispute to whom on
                                                                       F
    the basis of forged and fabricated documents, by which
    no rights can be transferred legally.

     7. That the petitioner further informed the answering
     respondent that he has also filed a police complaint              G
     against the said accused Pravinbhai Gangashanker Raval
     and Janakben Pravinchandra Raval (accused Nos. 1 & 2
     in the instant case FIR No. 45/2011) before the Special
     Investigation Team, Ahmadabad, Gujarat.
                                                                       H
    540       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A         8. That the petitioner further assured and has given an
          affidavitto the answering respondent that he will withdraw
          the Civil Suit bearing No. 300/2011, titled as Jayarajsingh
          Digvijaysingh Rana vs. Supan Plot Owners Association &
          Ors, filed before the City Civil Court) Ahmedabad for
B         specific performance and declaration, accepting that the
          petitioner did not have any legal right, possession, title or
          claim over the various !'.)lots in issue as they were sold to
          him by Pravinbhai Gangashanker Raval and Janakben
          Pravinchandra Raval (accused Nos. 1 & 2 in the instant
c         case) on t~e basis of forged documents. He further
          accepted the answering respondent to be the genuine
          owner of th~ plots in existence and with them.

          9. That after considering the bona fide intention of the
          petitioner the answering respondent hereby has no
D         objection if the present FIR No. 45/2011 _is quashed qua
          the petitioner. However, this requires to be clarified that
          the properties allegedly transferred in favour of the
          petitioner shall be conside}ed as the property of the
          Association and this transactiqn which had taken place
E         between the accused pers()Jls is a null and void
          transaction through which no title, right and interest has ever
          been transferred and the possession of the property was
          and is with the Association.

F         10. That in view of the above ana since the right, title and
          interest of the association is now protected as the
          documents showing transfer of the property in favour of the
          petitioner stand declared as incomp'etent documents,
          therefore, the answering respondent has no objection if the
          present special leave petition is allowed and the FIR in
G
          question is quashed qua the petitioner."

  The above information in the form of counter affidavit filed by
  Respondent No. 2 herein before this Court shows that by bona
  fide efforts, the appellant, who himself being the victim at the
H hands of Accused Nos. 1 and 2, assured Respondent No. 2
    JAYRAJSINH DIGVlJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF                    541
      GUJARAT AND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
  that he will not claim any right, title and interest over various     A
  plots beloflging to the Association. It is further seen that the
  appellant has also executed an affidavit to Respondent No. 2
  statifl9 that he will withdraw the Civil Suit bearing No. 300/2011
  filed before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for specific
  performance and declaration, accepting that he did not have           B
, any legal right, possession, title or claim over the var~ol!s plots
  in issue as they were sold to him by Accused Nos. land 2 on
  the basis of forged documents, Respondent No.2, after
  satisfying the bona fide intention of the appellant, informed this
  Court, by way of counter affidavit, that he has no objection if       c
  the present FIR No. 45/2011 is quashed qua the appellant.
  Respondent No.2, in categorical terms, informed this Court that
  in view of the stand taken by the appellant and since the right,
                                                       .
  title and interest of the said plots of the Association is now
  protected as the documents showing transfer of the property
                                                                        0
  in favour of the appellant stand declared as invalid documents,
  he has no objection if the present appeal is allowed and the
  FIR in question is quashed insofar as the appellant is
  concerned. Apart from the above stand of Respondent No. 2
  in the form of counter affidavit, learned senior counsel
                                                                        E
  appearing for him also reiterated the same.

     6. It is also relevant to point out that the averments in the
 FIR disclosed the offences punishable under Sections 467,
 468, 471, 420 and 120-8 of IPC.
                                                                        F
      7. The only question for consideration before this Court at
 this stage is that inasmuch as all those offences are not
 compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code
 (except Section 420 of IPC that too with the permission of the
 Court before which any prosecution for such offence is                 G
 pending), whether it would be possible to quash the FIR by the
 High Court under Section 482 of the Code or by this Court
 exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of
 India?

                                                                        H
    542       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A      8. The above question was recently considered by this
  Court in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. vs. Radhika & Anr. (2011) 10
  sec 705. The question posed in that case was "Whether the
  criminal proceedings in question could be quashed in the facts
  and circumstances of the case having regard to the settlement
B that the parties had arrived at." After adverting to Section 482
  of the Code and various decisions, this Court concluded as
  under:

          "17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not
          compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no
c         reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power
          under Section 482 CrPC. That power can in our opinion
          be exercised in cases where there is no chance of
          recording a conviction against the accused and the entire
          exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility.
D         There is a subtle distinction between compounding of
          offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal
          on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High
          Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 CrPC
          on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing
E         an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to
          permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement
          arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences
          are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court
          may quash the prosecution even in cases where the
F         offences with which the accused stand charged are non-
          compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court
          under Section 482 CrPC are not for that purpose
          controlled by Section 320 CrPC.

          18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the
G
          plenitude of the power under Section 482 CrPC by itself,
          makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same
          with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of
          the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and
          only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be
H
   JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF                     543
      GUJARAT AND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the                A
     prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process
     of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to
     enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power
     under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say
     is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends        B
     of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that
     power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The
     High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is
     called upon tb appreciate evidence for it cannot assume
     the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition       c
     under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
     Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider
     the facts and circumstances of each case to determine
     whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may
     be invoked."
                                                                        D
     9. On going through the factual details, earlier decision,
various offences under Section 320 of the Code and invocation
of Section 482 of the Code, we fully concur with the said
conclusion. In the case on hand, irrespective of the earlier
dispute between Respondent No. 2- the complainant and the               E
appellant being Accused No. 3 as well as Accused Nos. 1 and
2 subsequently and after getting all the materials, relevant
details etc., the present appellant (Accused No. 3.) sworn an
affidavit with bona fide intention securing the right, title and
interest in favour of Respondent No.2 herein-the Complainant.           F
In such bona fide circumstances, the power under Section 482
may be exercised. Further, in view of the settlement arrived at
between Respondent No. 2-the complainant and the appellant
(Accused No. 3), there is no chance of recording a conviction
insofar as the present appellant is concerned and the entire            G
exercise of trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. Inasmuch
as the matter has not reached the stage of trial, we are of the
view that the High Court, by exercising the inherent power under
Section 482 of the Code even in offences which are not
compoundable under Section 320, may quash the prosecution.              H
    544      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A However, as observed in Shiji (supra), the power under Section
  482 has to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the
  High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that
  continuance of the prosecution would be nothirig but an abuse
  of the process of law. In other words, the exercise of power
B must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where ·
  refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the
  process of law.

       10. In the light of the principles mentioned-above, inasmuch
  as Respondent No. 2-the Complainant has filed an affidavit
C highlighting the stand taken by the appellant (Accused No. 3)
  during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the
  terms of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying
  th~ same analogy and in order to do complete justice under
  Article 142 of the Constitution, we accept the terms of
D settlement insofar as the appellant herein (Accused No. 3) is
  concerned.

       11. In view of the same, we quash and set aside the
  impugned FIR No. 45/2011 registered with Sanand Police
E Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable under Sections
  467, 468, 4 71, 420 and 120-B of IPC insofar as the appellant
  (Accused No. 3) is concerned. The appeal is allowed to the
  extent mentioned above.

    B.B.B.                                       Appeal allowed.