Gujarat HC Quashes Six Men’s Convictions After Complainant Settles 2003 Field-Access Dispute During Appeal

The petitioners were convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and sentenced to one year’s simple imprisonment.

Their appeal was pending before the Sessions Court, which had suspended the sentence.

During the appeal, the parties amicably settled a dispute arising from a 2003 incident concerning access to a field.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR, consequential proceedings and conviction; the complainant consented, while the State opposed the application on the ground that conviction had already been recorded.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was invoked in the application; the judgment also discussed the High Court’s inherent quashing power by reference to Section 482 of the Code.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the inherent power to quash is distinct from statutory compounding and may be exercised to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, with due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence; serious offences with substantial societal impact are generally not quashed merely because of settlement.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan similarly permits quashing of non-compoundable offences that are predominantly private in nature, subject to consideration of the offence and relevant circumstances.

The Court also relied on Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh for the proposition that non-compoundable proceedings may be quashed where the parties have settled and the circumstances warrant it.

The Court treated the dispute as private and the offences as not sufficiently serious to outweigh the settlement or public interest.

It accepted that the parties had settled voluntarily, without coercion, and that the complainant no longer wished to prosecute.

On those facts, the Court concluded that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of process; it held that the power to quash could be exercised notwithstanding the trial court’s conviction and the pending appeal.

It directed the Sessions Judge, Patan, to pass an appropriate order in the pending appeal and made the Rule absolute to that extent.