Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 427 (RAJ)

Jitin Baghmar v. State of Rajasthan

2013-02-19

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
ORDER Issue notice. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, Learned counsel Shri M.K. Garg accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Service thus stands complete. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard and disposed of. 3. The present miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 362/2012, registered at the Police Station Partapnagar Bhilwara, Distt. Bhilwara instituted at the instance of the respondent No. 2 Dinesh Kumar for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC. 4. The First Information Report in this case was filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner in relation to certain monetary transactions. The FIR was filed because the accused advanced a cheque to the complainant which was bounced on the ground of difference of signatures. Now, this misc. petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise. The compromise agreement has been filed on record, wherein, it has been mentioned that the parties have compromised the matter and the complainant has received the amount against the disputed cheque. It has also been mentioned that the complainant is not desirous of continuing criminal proceedings against the accused. The compromise has already been verified by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to the extent of Sections 420 and 406, IPC. 5. Shri R. K. Charan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri M. K. Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent No. 2 have submitted that parties to the litigation have decided to settle all their disputes by way of a compromise. Learned counsel appearing before this Court have submitted that once the disputes between the parties have been settled and the parties have arrived at a compromise, then, continuance of the criminal proceedings is likely to unsettle the compromise arrived at between the parties. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the scope of inherent powers of the High Court for quashing the proceedings of cases involving non-compoundable offences while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in JT 2012 (9) SC 426 : (AIR 2012 SC (Cri) 1796 observed as below :- “57. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the scope of inherent powers of the High Court for quashing the proceedings of cases involving non-compoundable offences while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in JT 2012 (9) SC 426 : (AIR 2012 SC (Cri) 1796 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 FIR 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. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR 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 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. 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. Having considered the facts and circumstance and looking to the fact that the parties to the litigation have now decided to settle all their disputes by a mutual compromise, this Court is of the opinion that the possibility of accused-petitioner being convicted in the case is absolutely remote. Accordingly, when once the disputes have been settled between the parties by a mutual compromise then no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 8. The miscellaneous petition is thus allowed and the proceedings of FIR No. 362/2012, registered at Police Station Pratapnagar Bhilwara, Distt. Bhilwara and all other subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC are hereby quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Petition allowed.