Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Family Dispute: Hemantbhai Balvantbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 March 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 288

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Krishna Murari, J.

Can the pursuit of criminal charges be set aside to mend fractured family relationships? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a mother, son, and grandson, who were entangled in a legal battle over alleged financial impropriety. The Court ultimately decided to prioritize family harmony, quashing criminal proceedings against both the son and grandson, as well as the mother, in a related case. This decision highlights the Court’s willingness to use its powers to foster reconciliation within families.

Case Background

The case involves a family dispute between a mother (the complainant) and her son (Appellant No. 1) and grandson (Appellant No. 2). The dispute arose from allegations that the son forged the mother’s signature to add the grandson’s name to their joint bank account. Subsequently, the grandson allegedly withdrew a total of Rs. 10,50,000 from this account.

The mother filed a First Information Report (FIR) being I-C.R No.293/2007 at the Sarkhej Police Station against her son and grandson. Prior to this, the son had filed a separate FIR, being I-C.R. No. 337/2007, against the mother at the Satellite Police Station.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

Article 142 of the Constitution of India states:

“142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc. (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Son and Grandson):

• The appellants argued that the disputed signatures on documents D3 and D5 matched the complainant’s original signatures on documents D1, D2, D4, and D6. They relied on the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report (Annexure P2) to support this claim.
• The appellants stated that they had attempted to resolve the family dispute amicably but were unsuccessful.
• The appellants expressed their willingness to return the entire amount of Rs. 10,50,000 with 12% simple interest from 1.6.2007 to the complainant to end the litigation and restore family relations.

Arguments by the Complainant (Mother):

• The complainant argued that the trial court, revisional court, and High Court had all refused to discharge the accused, and therefore, the Supreme Court should not interfere with these concurrent findings.
• However, the complainant agreed to have the criminal proceedings against her quashed if the proceedings against her son and grandson were also quashed.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellants’ willingness to repay the disputed amount with interest to foster reconciliation, and the complainant’s agreement to quash the counter FIR to end the litigation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellants (son and grandson) should be quashed, considering the FSL report and the family relationship.
2. Whether the criminal proceedings against the complainant (mother) should also be quashed to promote reconciliation, given that the appellants were willing to compensate her.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The primary authority considered was:

• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: This provision empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the desire to foster reconciliation within the family. The Court considered the following factors:

• The FSL report (Annexure P-2) suggested that the disputed signatures might be genuine, which weakened the case against the appellants.
• The relationship between the parties (mother, son, and grandson) was a significant factor, and the Court aimed to avoid further damage to these relationships.
• The appellants’ willingness to repay the disputed amount with interest demonstrated their commitment to resolving the dispute amicably.
• The complainant’s agreement to quash the counter FIR indicated a mutual desire to end the litigation.

The court considered that “to continue the criminal proceedings against the appellants would not be in the larger interest of the parties.” The court also noted, “the dispute is between the mother on the one side and the son and grandson on the other side”, and that it was appropriate to quash the proceedings against the mother as well to promote reconciliation. The Court stated, “We hope and trust that the wiser sense will prevail and there shall be cordial relations between the parties.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court can use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings to promote family reconciliation.
• The willingness of parties to resolve disputes amicably, including financial compensation, can be a significant factor in the Court’s decision to quash proceedings.
• FSL reports and the nature of relationships between the parties are important considerations in deciding whether to continue criminal proceedings.
• This judgment emphasizes the importance of family harmony and the Court’s willingness to intervene to preserve it.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellants to return the entire amount of Rs. 10,50,000 with 12% simple interest from 01.06.2007 till the date of payment to the complainant within one week from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings in family disputes to foster reconciliation, especially when there is a willingness to compensate and the evidence is not conclusive. This case does not change the position of law but reinforces the Court’s ability to use its powers to achieve complete justice and prioritize family harmony.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against both the son and grandson, as well as the mother, in a related case. This decision was based on the FSL report, the willingness of the appellants to repay the disputed amount with interest, and the desire to promote reconciliation within the family. The Court used its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice and prioritize family harmony.