Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1305 (RAJ)

Deepak Arora v. State of Rajasthan Anr.

2014-07-02

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 363/2013 dated 23.11.2013 of Police Station, Chopasani Housing Board, District Jodhpur, for offence punishable under Sections 420,467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 was in respect of investment of Rs. 15,000/- in a private company. It is contended that respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint that he was lured by the petitioners to invest an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with a promise of good returns but when he did not receive the desirable returns, he filed the impugned F.I.R. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 have arrived at a compromise and in terms of that, the amount invested by the respondent No. 2 has already been returned to him and now he has no grievance against all the petitioners. A copy of the agreement arrived at between the parties have also been placed on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also submitted that the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 have already arrived at a compromise and the respondent No. 2 does not want to pursue the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioners at his instance. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the dispute has already been amicably settled between the parties, the impugned F.I.R. pending against the petitioners may kindly be quashed. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.- 6. After going through the impugned F.I.R. and the agreement arrived at between the parties, it seems that the dispute between the parties was in relation to some investment in a scheme and the nature of transaction appears to be financial. Now it seems that on account of repaying the money by the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 is satisfied and does not want to pursue the prosecution against the petitioners. Now it seems that on account of repaying the money by the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 is satisfied and does not want to pursue the prosecution against the petitioners. Today also, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No. 2 does not want to continue the proceedings against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC 426 , has held 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. 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. 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 predominatingly 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 Union tho 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." 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the disputes between the parties have already been settled and the respondent No. 2 does not want to press the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioners under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., it is a fit case wherein the impugned F.I.R. can be quashed. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra) and in the facts and circumstances as noted above, this Criminal Misc. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra) and in the facts and circumstances as noted above, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the F.I.R. No. 363/2013 dated 23.11.2013 of Police Station, Chopasani Housing Board, District Jodhpur, for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. is hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******