JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

Citation: [2012] 6 S.C.R. 534 · Decided: 20-07-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 534 
JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1040 of 2012) 
JULY 20, 2012 
[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-
co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.