Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1307 (RAJ)

Manak Chand Pittie v. State of Rajasthan

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 the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 71/2004 dated 11.9.2004 of Police Station Mahila Thana, Bikaner for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 420 I.P.C. 2. Today, the petitioners No. 1 and 3 and respondent No. 2 are present in person along with their Counsel and have stated that on account of compromise arrived at between the parties, the matrimonial dispute has already been resolved and the respondent No. 2 does not want to pursue the complaint filed by her against the petitioners. It is also stated by the parties that on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. launched at the instance of respondent No. 2 has already been decided as not pressed on 27.6.2007 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bikaner. 3. 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 High Court in quashing 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 offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. 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 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-dominating 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 continues 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." 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and decided to settle the dispute amicably, it is a fit case where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised and proceeding pending against the petitioners can be quashed. 5. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and decided to settle the dispute amicably, it is a fit case where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised and proceeding pending against the petitioners can be quashed. 5. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The F.I.R. No. 71/2004 dated 11.9.2004 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bikaner is quashed.Petition allowed. *******