REDACTED vs The State Of Gujarat

Court: Supreme Court
Case type: Not Found
Decided on: 05-11-2024

<pre> 2024 INSC 869
1
 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._________/2024
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4748/2024)
XYZ Appellant(s)
 VERSUS
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
ABAHY S.OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
FACTUAL DETAILS
2. The appellant is the first informant. A First
Information Report was registered at the instance of the
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections
376(2)(N) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, ‘the IPC’). The offences under Section 3(1)(R),
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
3(1)(w) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2024.11.16
12:25:15 IST
Reason:

2
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short,
‘the Atrocities Act’) were also alleged. The second
respondent is the accused named in the FIR. A charge
sheet was filed against the second respondent for the
said offences.
3. The second respondent filed a petition before the
High Court for quashing the charge sheet based on the
settlement allegedly arrived at between the parties. The
High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has
proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings with a
direction that the compensation received by the appellant
under the Atrocities Act shall be refunded to the
concerned authority.
SUBMISSIONS
4. The contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant can be summarized as follows:
(a) The High Court ought not to have quashed the
criminal proceedings without securing the personal
presence of the appellant before it and without verifying
from the appellant whether there was a settlement;
(b) Inviting our attention to the affidavits allegedly
affirmed by the appellant, which are referred to in
paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment, she submitted that,

3
on the face of it, the affidavits are suspicious. The
first affidavit is in English and was executed at
th
Ahmedabad on 18 August 2023. The second affidavit, which
is in Gujarati language, was allegedly executed by the
appellant on the same day at Rajkot. The appellant is
illiterate and has allegedly put her thumb impressions on
the affidavits. She submitted that there is no
endorsement on the affidavit made by the witness or
Advocate representing the appellant or the notary public
that the contents of the affidavit were explained to her.
It is submitted that in the absence of any such
endorsement, the High Court ought not to have relied upon
the affidavits and that also without securing the
personal presence of the appellant and without verifying
from the appellant whether there was a settlement;
(c) She submitted that, as pointed out in the counter
filed by the second respondent, an objectionable practice
was followed of producing the affidavits signed by the
complainant/victim along with the quashing petition. She
invited our attention to what is stated in paragraph 16
of the counter filed by the second respondent;
(d) Her submission is that the High Court has not done
its duty of verifying whether there was any settlement;

4
(e) Her submission is that it is not clear whether the
Advocate whose appearance is shown in the impugned
judgment as representing the appellant had filed
vakalatnama/ authority signed by the appellant;
(f) Her contention is that since the affidavits are no
affidavits in the eyes of law, the same cannot be the
basis of recording a finding that there was a settlement.
She submitted that these things are suspicious which call
for inquiry and
(g) Even assuming there was a settlement, the High Court
ought not to have quashed the charge sheet considering
the gruesome nature of the offence, which is against
society.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second
respondent pointed out that the affidavit in English is
also executed at Rajkot. Inviting our attention to the
said affidavit, he submitted that as the same was to be
filed in the quashing petition to be filed in the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, the title of the affidavit
is “In the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad”, but the
stamp of the notary shows that it was executed at Rajkot.
He submitted that the affidavits had been counter-signed
by the appellant’s brother (Mohan Chauhan). He pointed

5
out that copies of the Aadhar cards were annexed to the
affidavits. He also invited our attention to a letter
th
dated 11 November, 2023 in the Hindi language sent by
the appellant to the Officer-in-charge of the concerned
police station and, in particular, the last paragraph of
the said letter, which records that she had affixed her
thumb impressions on certain documents and the second
respondent paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to her husband.
He submitted that, as stated in the counter affidavit, on
a date fixed for hearing of the bail application filed
before the High Court by the second respondent, the
appellant was personally present in the High Court along
with her husband.
6. Learned Senior Counsel representing the State has
supported the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant.
OUR VIEW
7. The offences alleged were very serious. The offences
alleged were under Section 376(2)(N) of the IPC and the
Atrocities Act. When petitions are filed before the High
Court by invoking either Article 226 of the Constitution
of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for quashing

6
criminal proceedings of non-compoundable offences on the
ground of settlement, the High Court must satisfy itself
that there is a genuine settlement between the victim and
the accused. Without the Court being satisfied with the
existence of a genuine settlement, the petition for
quashing cannot proceed further. If the Court is
satisfied about the existence of a genuine settlement,
the other question to be considered is whether in the
facts of the case, the power of quashing deserves to be
exercised. Even if an affidavit of the victim accepting
the settlement is on record, in cases of serious offences
and especially against women, it is always advisable to
procure the presence of the victim either personally or
through video conference so that the Court can properly
examine whether there is a genuine settlement and that
the victim has no subsisting grievance.
It was all the more necessary in the present case as
the affidavits filed on record indicate that the
appellant is an illiterate woman. Both the affidavits
bear thumb impressions of the appellant, which were
identified by her brother Mohan Chauhan. When illiterate
persons affirm such affidavits by putting their thumb
impressions, usually, the affidavit must bear an

7
endorsement that the contents of the affidavits were
explained to the person affirming the same. After
noticing the absence of such an endorsement, the High
Court ought to have directed the appellant to personally
remain present before the Court so that the High Court
could have verified whether the appellant had put her
thumb impressions on the affidavits after she was
informed about the contents of the affidavit and after
she had fully understood the contents of the affidavit.
In this case, two affidavits were executed on the same
day. That should have one more reason before the High
Court to be very cautious before acting upon the
affidavits.
8. Now, a contention has been raised by the appellant
that thumb impressions have been taken on the typed
affidavits in suspicious circumstances without explaining
the contents thereof. The allegation is that the second
respondent was the appellant's employer.
9. As the High Court has passed the impugned judgment
and order without verifying whether there was a genuine
settlement between the appellant and the second
respondent, the impugned judgment and order cannot be
sustained.

8
10. We are, therefore, inclined to remand the case to
the High Court with a direction to the appellant to
remain present before the High Court on the date fixed by
this Court. The High Court will allow the appellant to
explain her position vis-`a-vis the stand taken by the
second respondent about the settlement. After hearing
the appellant, the High Court would be well within its
powers to order an inquiry to be held by a Judicial
Officer about the manner in which the affidavits have
been executed and on the question of whether the thumb
impressions of the appellant were taken on the affidavits
without explaining to her the contents of the affidavits.
11. It will always be open for the appellant to file an
affidavit before the High Court on the issue of
settlement. 
12. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and
th
order dated 29 September, 2023 and restore Criminal
Miscellaneous Application (for quashing and setting aside
the FIR/order) No.15041 of 2023 to the file of the High
Court. We direct that the restored petition be listed
nd
before the Roster Bench before the High Court on 2
December, 2024 in the morning when the appellant and the
second respondent shall remain present before the High

9
Court. Even the State shall be represented before the
High Court on that day.
13. It will be open for the appellant to file an
affidavit on the aspect of settlement before the High
Court. After considering all the relevant materials, if
necessary, the High Court can always order an inquiry to
be held by a Judicial Officer on the question of whether
there was a settlement between the appellant and the
second respondent and whether the affidavits were
affirmed after explaining the contents thereof to the
appellant.
14. If the High Court finds that there was, in fact, a
settlement arrived between the appellant and the second
respondent, the High Court will have to consider the
question of whether the power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution can be
exercised to quash the criminal proceedings based on
compromise. All questions in that behalf are kept open.
15. The Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment
to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Gujarat
at Ahmedabad, who shall ensure that the restored petition
is listed before the Roster Bench as directed above.

10
16. The Appeal is partly allowed on the above terms.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
..........................J.
 (ABHAY S.OKA)
 
 
.........................J.
 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 5, 2024.

11
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-B
 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4748/2024
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
29-09-2023 in CRMA No. 15041/2023 passed by the High
Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad)
XYZ Petitioner(s)
 VERSUS
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.67052/2024-EXEMPTION
FROM FILING O.T.)
 
Date : 05-11-2024 This petition was called on for hearing
today.
CORAM : 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv.
 Mr. Paras Nath Singh, AOR
 Mr. Rohin Bhatt, Adv.
 Mr. Sadeeq UR Rahman, Adv.
 
 
For Respondent(s) Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv.
 Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
 Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv.
 Ms. Abhipsa Mohanty, Adv.
 Ms. Shrishti Mishra, Adv.
 
 
 Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv.
 Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Adv.
 Ms. Savita Singh, AOR
 Mr. Kushal Malhotra, Adv.

12
 
 
 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
 O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed
Reportable Judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
 (KAVITA PAHUJA) (AVGV RAMU)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file]</pre>