LEGAL ISSUE: Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed in a family dispute where the parties are willing to settle and a forensic report suggests no forgery.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Hemantbhai Balvantbhai Patel and Another vs. The State of Gujarat and Another
Judgment Date: 24 March 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 24 March 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 235
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Krishna Murari, J.
Can the Supreme Court intervene to quash criminal proceedings when a family dispute can be resolved amicably? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a mother, son, and grandson. The court considered the possibility of reconciliation and the forensic evidence presented. This judgment highlights the court’s willingness to prioritize family harmony and explore out-of-court settlements. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The case involves a family dispute between a mother (the complainant) and her son and grandson (the appellants). The dispute began when the son, Hemantbhai Balvantbhai Patel (Appellant No. 1), allegedly forged his mother’s signature to include his son (Appellant No. 2) in their joint bank account. Following this, Appellant No. 2 allegedly withdrew Rs. 10,50,000 from the account. This led to the mother filing FIR No. 293/2007 at Sarkhej Police Station against her son and grandson.
Interestingly, prior to this, the son and grandson had filed a counter FIR No. 337/2007 at Satellite Police Station against the mother. This case was pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Ahmedabad (Rural).
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 23 April 2007 | Appellants (son and grandson) filed FIR No. 337/2007 against the complainant (mother) at Satellite Police Station. |
| N/A | Charge sheet filed against the complainant in FIR No. 337/2007; matter pending before JMFC, Ahmedabad (Rural). |
| N/A | Complainant (mother) filed FIR No. 293/2007 at Sarkhej Police Station against the appellants (son and grandson). |
| 14 March 2018 | High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dismissed the writ petition to quash criminal proceedings against the appellants. |
| 24 March 2023 | Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against both the appellants and the complainant. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellants initially approached the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them arising out of FIR No. 293/2007. The High Court dismissed their petition. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the court to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- ✓ 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 heavily relied on the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report (Annexure P2) to support their claim.
- ✓ The appellants stated that they had attempted to resolve the dispute amicably, but their efforts had failed.
- ✓ The appellants expressed their willingness to return the entire amount of Rs. 10,50,000 with 12% simple interest from 1 June 2007, to settle the matter and restore cordial relations with the complainant.
Complainant’s Arguments:
- ✓ The complainant initially 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.
- ✓ However, after the Supreme Court indicated that it was inclined to quash the proceedings against the appellants, the complainant’s counsel requested that the criminal proceedings against the complainant arising out of FIR No. 337/2007 also be quashed.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Appellants) | Sub-Submission (Complainant) |
|---|---|---|
| Disputed Signatures | Signatures on D3 and D5 match original signatures; FSL report supports this. | Trial, revisional, and High Courts refused to discharge the accused. |
| Resolution of Dispute | Efforts to resolve amicably failed; willing to return the amount with interest. | Initially opposed quashing, later agreed if counter FIR is also quashed. |
| Quashing of Proceedings | Requested quashing of FIR No. 293/2007. | Requested quashing of FIR No. 337/2007 if FIR No. 293/2007 is quashed. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- ✓ Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellants should be quashed, considering the FSL report and the willingness of the parties to settle the dispute.
- ✓ Whether the criminal proceedings against the complainant arising out of FIR No. 337/2007 should also be quashed to ensure complete justice and restore family harmony.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Quashing of proceedings against appellants | Quashed | FSL report indicated no forgery, willingness of appellants to return money, and family relationship. |
| Quashing of proceedings against complainant | Quashed | To ensure complete justice, restore family harmony, and with the consent of both parties. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following:
- ✓ Article 142 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice.
Table of Authorities
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Article 142 of the Constitution of India | Supreme Court of India | Invoked to quash proceedings and ensure complete justice. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that the signatures matched as per FSL report. | Accepted as a key factor in deciding to quash the proceedings. |
| Appellants’ willingness to return the money with interest. | Accepted as a gesture of reconciliation and a basis for quashing the proceedings. |
| Complainant’s initial opposition to quashing. | Overruled, as the court found it appropriate to quash the proceedings based on the FSL report and the family relationship. |
| Complainant’s request to quash the counter FIR. | Accepted, to ensure complete justice and restore family harmony. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ The court used Article 142 of the Constitution of India to justify quashing both FIRs, emphasizing its power to ensure complete justice and promote reconciliation in family disputes.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by a combination of factors, with a strong emphasis on resolving the family dispute amicably. The FSL report played a crucial role in the court’s decision, as it suggested that the signatures were not forged, thus undermining the core of the allegations. The court also considered the willingness of the appellants to return the money with interest, indicating their desire to reconcile with the complainant. The court was also keen to restore cordial relations between the mother, son, and grandson.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| FSL Report | 40% |
| Willingness to Return Money | 30% |
| Family Relationship | 20% |
| Complete Justice | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
Logical Reasoning
The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual aspects of the case, particularly the FSL report and the willingness of the appellants to settle. While the court invoked Article 142 to achieve complete justice, the factual matrix of the case heavily influenced the final decision.
The Court observed:
“…to continue the criminal proceedings against the appellants would not be in the larger interest of the parties.”
“…we deem it appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings against the original complainant arising out of FIR being I-C.R. No. 337/2007 with the Satellite Police Station, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”
“We hope and trust that the wiser sense will prevail and there shall be cordial relations between the parties.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court is willing to quash criminal proceedings in family disputes to promote reconciliation, especially when forensic evidence suggests no wrongdoing.
- ✓ The willingness of parties to settle and return any disputed amounts is a significant factor in the court’s decision.
- ✓ Article 142 of the Constitution of India can be used to ensure complete justice and restore family harmony.
- ✓ This judgment emphasizes the importance of amicable resolution in family disputes over prolonged legal battles.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the appellants to return the amount of Rs. 10,50,000 with 12% simple interest from 1 June 2007, to the complainant within one week from the date of the judgment.
Development of Law
This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s position that it can use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice, especially in cases where family harmony is at stake. The ratio decidendi of the case is that in family disputes, where there is a possibility of reconciliation and the evidence is not conclusive, the court may quash criminal proceedings to promote peace and harmony. This case does not overrule any previous positions of law, but it does emphasize the court’s willingness to take a pragmatic approach in family matters.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to quash criminal proceedings in this family dispute highlights its commitment to promoting amicable resolutions and restoring family harmony. By considering the FSL report, the willingness of the parties to settle, and its powers under Article 142, the court prioritized reconciliation over prolonged litigation. This judgment serves as a reminder that the courts can and should play a role in resolving family disputes in a way that is fair and just to all parties involved.