Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1845 (RAJ)

Nema Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2013-10-21

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2013
JUDGMENT : 1. Application (Cri. MP No. 697/2013) for early hearing is allowed. 2. This is petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 74/2008, P.S. Bagdi Nagar and consequential proceedings qua the petitioners pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 10/2008 titled as State of Rajasthan v. Amra Ram & Others. 3. The FIR was lodged against the petitioners for offence under Sections 143, 341, 342, 323 of the IPC. Challan was filed under Sections 323, 341, 342, 307/34 of the IPC. Meanwhile, the matter was compromised. In pursuance to the said compromise, the parties filed application before the trial court under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioners were acquitted of the offence under Sections 323, 341, 342 of the IPC. However, the charge of offence under Section 307 of the IPC was maintained as the Magistrate has no power to quash the proceedings under Section 307 of the IPC under the said provision. The order of the trial court acquitting the petitioners in the above mentioned FIR for offence under Sections 323, 341, 342 of the IPC is placed on record. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 complainant does not dispute the above facts and admits that the matter has been compromised. It is further stated by him that he has instruction to stated before this Court that they have no objection if the proceedings under Section 307 of the IPC and all proceedings in pursuance to the FIR No. 74/2008, R.S. Bagdi Nagar pending before the trial court are quashed. 5. This Court is conscious of the fact that offence in the present case is under Section 307 of the IPC. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dimpey Gujral W/o Vivek Gujral & Ors. v. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh & Ors., in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012, decided on December 6, 2012 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while relying on the judgment rendered by a larger Bench in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. in SLP (Cri.) No. 8989 of 2010, decided on 24.9.2012 , quashed the FIR for offence under Section 307 of the IPC Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under:- "5. in SLP (Cri.) No. 8989 of 2010, decided on 24.9.2012 , quashed the FIR for offence under Section 307 of the IPC Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under:- "5. In light of the above observations of this court in Gian Singh, we feel that this is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. In the circumstances of the case, FIR No. 163 dated 26/10/2006 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial court are hereby quashed." 6. The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 594, has observed as under:- "The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromises, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power." 7. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, reported as (2008) 4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- "6. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power." 7. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, reported as (2008) 4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- "6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." 8. In the present case, the petitioners have been acquitted of the other offences including under Sections 323, 341, 342 of the IPC on the basis of the compromise. Thus, the likelihood of the petitioners being convicted under Section 307 of the IPC is remote. Moreover, the injury in the present case is stated to be simple in nature. It is further pointed out that cross-case registered by the petitioners against the complainant side has also been quashed in pursuance to the same compromise. 9. In view of the above, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed and FIR No. 74/2008, PS. Bagdi Nagar as well as the proceedings pending against the petitioners for offence under Section 307 of the IPC before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 10/2008 are quashed.Petition Allowed.