Page 1

REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.      1040                OF     2012   (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8783 of 2011

Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana                      .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Gujarat & Anr.                      .... Respondent(s)

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T      

P.     Sathasivam,     J.   

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed against the impugned order dated  

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 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,  

1

Page 2

Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 467,  

468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in  

short ‘the IPC’).

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  

disposed of illegally by creating false/forged documents by one  

Pravinbhai Gangashankar Raval (original 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).

(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.   

(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  

2

Page 3

set aside the said FIR.  The High Court, by impugned order  

dated 18.07.2011, dismissed the same.   

(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 for  

the appellant, Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel for  

respondent No.1-State of Gujarat and Mr. S.B. Upadhyay,  

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,  

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 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 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,  

3

Page 4

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 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 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, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.

8.  That the petitioner further assured and has given an  affidavit to 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 specific  performance and declaration, accepting that the petitioner  did not have any legal right, possession, title or claim over  the various plots in issue as they were sold to him by  Pravinbhai Gangashanker Raval and Janakben  Pravinchandra Raval (accused Nos. 1 & 2 in the instant case)  on the basis of forged documents.  He further accepted the  answering respondent to be the genuine owner of the plots in  existence and with them.

9. That after considering the bona fide intention of the  petitioner the answering respondent hereby has no 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 considered as the property of the Association and  this transaction which had taken place between the accused  persons 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.

10. That in view of the above and 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 incompetent documents, therefore, the  answering respondent has no objection if the present special  

4

Page 5

leave petition is allowed and the FIR in 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  

hands of Accused Nos. 1 and 2, assured Respondent No. 2 that  

he will not claim any right, title and interest over various plots  

belonging to the Association.  It is further seen that the  

appellant has also executed an affidavit to Respondent No. 2  

stating 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 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 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 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  

5

Page 6

property 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 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-B of IPC.   

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 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?   

8) The above question was recently considered by this Court  

in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. vs. Radhika & Anr. (2011) 10 SCC  

705.  The question posed in that case was “Whether the  

6

Page 7

criminal proceedings in question could be quashed in the facts  

and circumstances of the case having regard to the settlement  

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 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. 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 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 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 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 recorded, of  the clear view that continuance of the 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 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 to appreciate  

7

Page 8

evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court  while dealing with a petition 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.”

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  

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.  

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  

exercise of trial is destined to be an exercise in futility.  

Inasmuch as the matter has not reached the stage of trial, we  

8

Page 9

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.  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  

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.     

10) In the light of the principles mentioned above, inasmuch  

as Respondent No. 2-the 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 under  

Article 142 of the Constitution, we accept the terms of  

settlement insofar as the appellant herein (Accused No. 3) is  

concerned.  

9

Page 10

11) In view of the same, we quash and set aside the  

impugned FIR No. 45/2011 registered with Sanand Police  

Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable under Sections  

467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC insofar as the appellant  

(Accused No. 3) is concerned.  The appeal is allowed to the  

extent mentioned above.

...…………….…………………………J.            (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

..…....…………………………………J.    (RANJAN GOGOI)  

NEW DELHI; JULY 20, 2012.  

1