Allowed

Kanubhai Ramabhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC18 Feb 2022CR.MA/19662/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gujarat High Court quashed a criminal FIR against employers after confirming that a settlement was reached, compensation paid, and the applicants undertook to continue monthly payments pending insurance claims. The court followed Supreme Court precedents on quashing in settlement cases.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR I-C.R.No. I-122 of 2019 and consequential proceedings against the applicants.

Kanubhai Ramabhai Parmar Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

R/CR.MA/19662/2019 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19662 of 2019

¶4

========================================================

¶5

KANUBHAI RAMABHAI PARMAR

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

======================================================== Appearance:

¶9

MR VAIBHAV N SHETH(5337) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MS MAITHILI D MEHTA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶10

SUNIL H PRAJAPATI(8350) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

¶11

========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

¶13

Date : 18/02/2022

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

Heard learned Advocate Shri Vaibhav Sheth on behalf of the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili D. Mehta on behalf of respondent no.1- State and learned Advocate Shri Sunil Prajapati on behalf of respondent no.2- original complainant.

¶16

2. On 09.02.2022 this Court has passed the following order:

¶17

“Heard learned Advocate Shri Vaibhav Sheth on behalf of the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili D. Mehta on behalf of respondent no.1- State and learned Advocate Shri Jay Shah for learned Advocate Shri Sunil Prajapati on behalf of respondent no.2- original complainant.

¶18

By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR I- C.R. No. I- 122 of 2019 registered with Prantij Police Station, District: Sabarkantha on 11.10.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 337 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7, 9 and 2(D) of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and under Sections 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe ( Prevention of Atrocities Act) and the consequential proceedings arisen therefrom.

¶19

Learned Advocate Shri Sheth would submit that a reading of the FIR would show that no negligence had been committed by the present petitioners as employers. Learned Advocate would further submit that the complainant as well as widow of the deceased have settled the matter inter se. Learned Advocate

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

R/CR.MA/19662/2019 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022

¶22

would submit that apart from the compensation which has been given to the widow of the deceased by the State Government under various welfare schemes, the petitioners have also paid in total an amount of Rs. 4,40,000/- which includes an amount of Rs. 10,000/- which is transferred to the widow of the deceased every month. Learned Advocate would further submit that the petitioners would continue giving such amount to the widow of the deceased till the amount of insurance in lieu of an insurance policy taken by the deceased is paid by the Insurance Company.

¶23

As against the same, learned Advocate Shri Jay Shah on behalf of respondent no.2- original complainant would confirm the submissions made by learned Advocate Shri Sheth and whereas learned Advocate would submit that the widow of the deceased has also filed an affidavit whereby she has affirmed that apart from the money paid to her by the Government, the petitioners have paid an amount of Rs. 4,40,000/- including amount of Rs. 10,000/- transferred to the account of the widow of the deceased.

¶24

This Court upon request of the learned Advocates has permitted widow of the deceased to join the meeting and upon joining the meeting, the widow of the deceased who is identified by learned Advocate Shri Jay Shah, confirms the fact of having received an amount of Rs. 4,40,000/- including an amount of Rs. 10,000/- transferred every month by the petitioners to her account. Widow of the deceased would also submit that the petitioners have assured her that the monthly payment shall continue till she receives the amount of the insurance. Upon inquiry by this Court, the widow of the deceased submits that she would not have any objection if the complaint impugned is quashed.

¶25

Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocates for the parties, let the fact of the settlement between the parties verified by the Investigating Officer, more particularly the complainant as well as the widow of the deceased would report to the Prantij Police Station where her statement shall be recorded by the Investigating Officer. Let the petitioners also file an undertaking to the effect that until the widow of the deceased receives the amount as per the insurance policy they will continue to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/ per month. For such purpose let this matter be listed 16.02.2022. Presence of the widow of the deceased as well as complainant is dispensed with.”

¶26

In furtherance of order dated 09.02.2022 learned Advocate Shri Sheth would inform this Court that petitioner no.1 has filed an undertaking whereby he has stated on oath that he will continue to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to widow of original deceased namely Laxmiben

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

R/CR.MA/19662/2019 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022

¶29

wd/o Bahadurbhai @ Badarji Kantiji Masar till she receives the amount of Life Insurance Policy on account of death of her husband. Such undertaking on affidavit is on record.

¶30

Learned APP would submit that the widow of the deceased had presented herself before the concerned Investigating Officer and whereas her statement has been recorded wherein she has confirmed the fact of settlement etc. as noted by this Court vide order dated 09.02.2022.

¶31

Having regard to the facts as noted in order dated 09.02.2022 more particularly the fact that the petitioners had paid total amount of Rs.4,40,000/- to the widow of the deceased and whereas in view of the undertaking as filed by the petitioner no.1 today and in view of the fact that the complainant as well as the widow of the deceased had consented upon settlement for quashing of the FIR, in the considered opinion of this Court no fruitful purpose would be served if the impugned FIR and any further proceedings arising therefrom are permitted to continue, more particularly in the opinion of this Court the same would be an exercise in futility. This Court relies upon the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab , reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors. , reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) to arrive at the above conclusion.

¶32

Having regard to the same, the impugned FIR being C.R. No. I- 122 of 2019 registered with Prantij Police Station, District: Sabarkantha on 11.10.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 337 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7, 9 and 2(D) of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

R/CR.MA/19662/2019 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022

¶35

and under Sections 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe ( Prevention of Atrocities Act) and any proceedings arisen therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners. Liberty is reserved in favour of the widow of the deceased and the original complainant to revive the present petition in case the undertaking is not complied with by the petitioner no.1.

¶36

With these observations and directions, present petition stands dispose of. Direct service is permitted.

¶37

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)

¶38

NIRU

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Kanubhai Ramabhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanubhai Ramabhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punambhai Kantibhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Panjabilal Shankrdayal Sen Vs State of Gujarat

Dilipbhai @ Musabhai Abdulgani Vohra Vs State of Gujarat

Premgiri Devgiri Goswami Vs State of Gujarat

Renukaben Prakashbhai Barot Vs State of Gujarat

Niyatiben Udayanbhai Barot Vs State of Gujarat