Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2156 (RAJ)

Khusi Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan

2012-11-01

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of proceedings of Criminal Regular Case No. 426/2001 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner arising out of F.I.R. No. 153/1999 of P.S. Chattargarh, Distt. Bikaner for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the F.I.R. No. 153/1999 registered at P.S. Chattargarh was investigated and a charge-sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners. The trial was commenced and is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner. One of the co-accused Sada Sukh expired. Subsequently the complainant as well as the accused arrived at a compromise. A compromise application filed by the complainant and the accused was accepted and verified by the trial Court to the extent of offences under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. those offences are compoundable. However, for the remaining offences the trial is still continuing as those offences are non-compoundable. Now, the accused has approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in the trial Court by way of the instant miscellaneous petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties was purely a personal dispute and as the parties have arrived at a compromise keeping criminal proceedings would be nothing but a futile exercise. He submits that as the complainant has compromised dispute with the petitioner, it is unlikely that he would depose against the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the miscellaneous petition be accepted and the proceedings of the criminal case pending against the petitioners be quashed. He places reliance on the decision of a three Judges Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in JT 2012 (9) SC 426 , answering the reference made to it as to whether the trial/proceedings of a case involving non-compoundable offences could be quashed by exercising inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. Mr. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. Mr. Umesh Shrimali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has supported the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that as the parties have already compromised the issue amongst themselves and as the dispute is purely of a private nature, the miscellaneous petition should be accepted. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record particularly the F.I.R. which has been placed on record, it is apparent that the F.I.R. reveals purely a private dispute between the complainant and the accused in relation to an allegedly fraudulent transaction of land. A copy of the compromise application filed by the parties has also been placed on record and the compromise application was accepted by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. A Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) was considering a reference made to it regarding the question as to whether the inherent powers of the High Court could be exercised for quashing proceedings of a case involving non-compoundable offences and for considering the earlier decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in JT 2003 (3) SC 277 and Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ann reported in JT 2008 (9) SC 192 and the Court after considering various facets of the matter observed as below : 57. The, position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or F.I.R. or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal Court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between .the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the. purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case Would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 7. In view of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh's case (supra) and looking to the fact that the dispute is purely of private nature and is essentially about the civil right to property based on a transaction of land, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for exercising inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of the case which is going on against the accused in this matter. 8. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed and all proceedings in the Criminal Case No. 426/2001 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner for the offences tinder Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B C. against the petitioners are hereby quashed. The stay application is also disposed of.Petition allowed. *******