- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
LAXMANBHAI PARTHIBHAI LOHCHAUDHARY v. STATE OF GUJARAT
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad — Oral Order Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The writ-application under Article 226 arises from a written complaint dated 19.03.2011 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Palanpur, in which the writ-applicant alleged that police officers were acting in collusion with his wife and her relatives. The applicant sought, among other reliefs, a writ of mandamus directing registration of the complaint as an FIR and an expeditious investigation. The State's counsel informed the Court that an inquiry had been conducted and closed on the basis that the allegations lacked substance. The inquiry was conducted by a Police Sub-Inspector of Chhapi Police Station, and the record did not clearly indicate whether the inquiry report had been approved by a higher authority.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondents should be directed to register the complaint dated 19/03/2011 as an FIR and to investigate it expeditiously and in accordance with law.
- Whether the Court should direct respondents to show the progress of any investigation made pursuant to the complaint dated 19/03/2011 and subsequent representations.
- Whether, given prior settlement discussions and an earlier court order in a related criminal miscellaneous application, the present complaint merits fresh scrutiny—particularly where there are allegations against police officers themselves.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments (Mr. B. S. Raju)
- The inquiry that resulted in closure was an "eyewash" because police officers were allegedly involved; the applicant questioned the basis and adequacy of the inquiry report.
- The applicant maintained that a prior settlement relied upon by others in the case did not pertain to the subject matter of the present petition.
Respondent / State's Arguments (Learned APP)
- The complaint lodged by the writ-applicant was looked into, and the inquiry concluded that the allegations were without substance; accordingly, the inquiry was closed.
Intervenor / Wife's Counsel (Mr. Jigar Gadhvi)
- The wife of the writ-applicant pointed to a settlement recorded in this Court's earlier order dated 25.10.2013 in Criminal Misc. Application No.16671 of 2011, which indicated that the parties had amicably resolved matrimonial disputes and had consented to quash an FIR (Chhapi Police Station I.C.R. No.15 of 2011) pursuant to certain financial terms.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| B. S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 | Courts should adopt a conciliatory approach in matrimonial disputes; High Courts have inherent power under Section 482 CRPC to quash criminal proceedings/FIRs in appropriate matrimonial dispute cases and Section 320 CRPC does not limit that power. | The Court reproduced and relied upon the principles from this authority in the prior order dated 25.10.2013 to explain why, where parties settle matrimonial disputes, quashing of FIRs may be appropriate. The present order references that earlier reasoning but did not itself quash the complaint; instead it directed a fresh administrative reconsideration of the inquiry into the present complaint. |
| Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 | In disputes of a purely personal nature, courts should ordinarily accept terms of compromise in criminal proceedings where appropriate, as it is a practical approach that conserves judicial resources. | The Court cited this authority in the earlier order (25.10.2013) to support accepting a settlement in matrimonial disputes. In the present proceedings the Court noted the earlier settlement and authorities but required a further inquiry into the present complaint due to concerns about the adequacy of the initial police inquiry and possible involvement of police officers. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded by first recording the factual matrix: the applicant's written complaint of 19.03.2011 alleging collusion between police officers and the applicant's wife and her relatives; and the State's position that an inquiry had been conducted and closed as lacking substance. The Court observed that the inquiry was conducted by a Police Sub-Inspector of Chhapi Police Station and that the record did not make clear whether the report was approved by a senior officer.
The Court also considered the contention by learned counsel for the wife that a settlement between the parties had been recorded earlier (reflected in the order dated 25.10.2013 in Criminal Misc. Application No.16671 of 2011), which had led that Court to quash a related FIR (Chhapi I.C.R. No.15 of 2011). The earlier order had relied upon Supreme Court authorities (B.S. Joshi and Madan Mohan Abbot) which endorse accepting settlements in matrimonial disputes and empower High Courts to quash criminal proceedings in suitable cases under Section 482 CRPC.
Despite the earlier settlement in the related proceeding, the present applicant's counsel maintained that the settlement did not pertain to the subject matter of this petition. Given the competing positions and the particular concern that police officers themselves were alleged to be involved, the Court concluded that administrative re-examination of the inquiry was necessary. The Court therefore did not directly quash or order registration of an FIR; instead it directed the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha, to reexamine the matter—particularly the inquiry report—to determine whether a thorough and appropriate inquiry had been conducted and, if allegations implicated police officers, to investigate those aspects in detail.
The Court imposed a two-month timeline for the Superintendent of Police to take an appropriate decision from the date of receipt of the order. The application for impleadment was disposed of; the Court left open the ability to summon parties if necessary so they could make their positions clear, and permitted direct service.
Holding and Implications
FINAL HOLDING: The application is disposed of with directions to the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha, to re-examine the inquiry/report and take an appropriate decision within two months from receipt of the order.
Implications:
- The Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha, must relook into the matter, assess whether the prior inquiry was thorough and appropriate, and, if allegations are against police officers, investigate those allegations in detail.
- The application for impleadment was disposed of; the Court retained the option to summon parties for clarification if needed and permitted direct service of the order.
- The order does not itself quash or order registration of an FIR in the present petition; instead it mandates administrative reconsideration of the inquiry and a decision within a defined timeframe.
- No new legal precedent was announced by this order; the Court referred to established Supreme Court authorities concerning settlement in matrimonial disputes and the High Court's power under Section 482 CRPC, and applied those authorities to the earlier recorded settlement while requiring fresh administrative scrutiny in the present matter.
(Summary prepared exclusively from the text of the provided opinion dated 16/02/2018.)
R/SCR.A/3192/2011 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3192 of 2011 With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 789 of 2012 In
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3192 of 2011
========================================================== LAXMANBHAI PARTHIBHAI LOH(CHAUDHARY)....Applicant(s) Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
========================================================== Appearance:
MR. BHADRISH S RAJU, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3 MR RAKESH PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 16/02/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ- applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"17(a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or appropriate order and/or direction, directing the respondents to register the complaint given by the petitioner dated 19/03/2011 as an FIR and to investigate the same expeditiously and in accordance with law.
Page 1 of 11
(b) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, to direct the respondents to show the progress and/or investigation made till today pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioner dated 19/03/2011 and subsequent representations.
(c) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper."
2. It appears that the writ-applicant lodged a complaint in writing dated 19.03.2011 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Palanpur, which is at page 31, Annexure 'D' to this writ- application. In the complaint, allegations have been levelled against the police that they are acting in collusion with the wife of the writ-applicant and the other members of the wife's family. The grievance of the wit-applicant is that nothing has been done so far in connection with the complaint dated 19.03.2011 referred to above.
3. The learned APP appearing for the State pointed out that the complaint lodged by the writ-applicant, which is at page 31 of the paper book, was looked into, and at the end of the inquiry, it was found that there was no substance in the
Page 2 of 11
allegations. Therefore, the inquiry was closed.
4. Mr. Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the inquiry was nothing but an eyewash because the police officers were involved in the matter. Mr. Raju questions the very basis of the report of the inquiry.
5. It appears that the inquiry was conducted by the Police Sub-Inspector of the Chhapi Police Station, District Banaskantha. It is not clear from the record, whether the report was approved by the higher authority or not.
6. At this stage, Mr. Jigar Gadhvi, the learned Counsel seeks impleadment in the main matter, as the wife of the writ- applicant pointed out that, in fact, there was a settlement arrived at between the parties and the same is evident from the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by this Court in the Criminal Misc. Application No.16671 of 2011. The order passed by this Court dated 25.10.2013 reads as under:
"1) Rule. Mr. Himanshu Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. Jigar Gadhavi, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2.
Page 3 of 11
2) Having regard to the facts of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
3) By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the applicants seek quashing of the first information report registered vide Chhapi Police Station I-C.R. No.15 of
2011.
4) The second respondent lodged the above referred first information report against the applicants herein alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 498A, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the pendency of the present petition, the parties have amicably resolved the dispute between them, and the compromise has been reduced in writing by way of an agreement dated 24thOctober, 2013, a copy whereof is placed on the record of the court. By the said agreement, the applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 have agreed to settle all
Page 4 of 11
their matrimonial disputes. The applicant No.1 is required to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- (rupees eight lakh) before the civil court towards full and final maintenance and/or alimony to the respondent No.2, out of which, the respondent No.2 shall be entitled to withdraw Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakh) on the day when she gives her consent for divorce and deposes before the civil court at the time of filing Hindu Marriage Petition under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Whereas the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakh) shall be withdrawn on the day on which she gives her final deposition consenting to the divorce and that the applicant No.1 shall not make any objection to the said withdrawal. The parties have also agreed that the respondent No.2 and her family members shall cooperate and consent to quashing of the first information report registered vide Chhapi Police Station I-C.R. No.15 of 2011. The settlement is limited to the said first information report only.
5) Mr. S. V. Raju, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants, has submitted that this being a matrimonial
Page 5 of 11
dispute, in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the first information report and all proceedings pursuant thereto are required to be quashed in the interest of justice. On behalf of the applicant No.1-husband, the agreement dated 24thOctober, 2013 has been signed by a power of attorney holder, who has been duly empowered to execute such document on his behalf, a copy of that power of attorney has also been placed on record and the applicant No.1 has agreed to ratify all documents that may be executed by the power of attorney on his behalf on the basis of such power of attorney.
6) Mr. Jigar Gadhavi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the second respondent has submitted that in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the second respondent does not desire to continue with the proceedings initiated pursuant to the first information report and that she gives her consent for quashing the same. The second respondent is personally present before this court and reiterates the contents of the affidavit filed by her.
Page 6 of 11
7) In B. S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Supreme Court has held thus:
13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G. V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and others ((2000) 3 SCC 693) are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the Courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly extent which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it
Page 7 of 11
takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young"
days in chasing their "cases" in different Courts.
14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper- technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.
Page 8 of 11
8) In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State Of Punjab .,
(2008) 4 SCC 582, the Supreme Court has held thus;
6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the
technicalities of the law.
9) Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it is apparent that during the pendency of the present application, the parties have amicably sorted out their differences. Pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties on account of intervention of well wishers, the second respondent is no longer desirous of
Page 9 of 11
prosecuting the applicants. A perusal of the allegations made in the first information report makes it amply clear that the dispute relates to a matrimonial dispute between the parties. In the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, if the proceedings are permitted to continue, the same would come in the way of the second respondent-wife in settling down early in life. Under the circumstances, the interests of justice would best be served if the first information report in question is quashed. This is, therefore, a fit case for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code.
10) For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The first information report registered vide Chhapi Police Station I-C.R. No.15 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly."
7. Mr. Raju, once again, clarified that this settlement has nothing to do with the dispute on hand, i.e. the subject matter of this petition.
8. Be that as it may, I direct the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha, to once again look into the matter, more
Page 10 of 11
particularly, the report, and take an appropriate decision, whether there was a thorough & appropriate inquiry or not. If the allegations are against the Police Officers, that it is all the more serious, then the same should be looked into in details.
9. Let an appropriate decision be taken by the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha, in this regard within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order.
10. In view of the above, the application seeking impleadment is also disposed of. If need be, the parties shall be summoned so that they can make their stance clear.
11. With the above, this application is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
MAYA
Page 11 of 11
Alert