Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 612 (RAJ)

Gokal Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2014-03-04

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up on an application for early listing of the case. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 have stated that parties have entered into a compromise and the respondent No.2 is not willing to prosecute the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. 3. In such circumstances, the application is allowed and with the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally. 4. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against them in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No.792/2000-State v. Gokal Ram & Ors. 5. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent No.2 a case was registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 323 IPC. After investigation police filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323 and 326/34 IPC before the trial court, wherein the petitioners are facing trial for the aforesaid offences. 6. During the pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent No.2 while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323 and 326/34 IPC may be terminated. The trial court vide order dated 27.01.2014 allowed the parties to compound the offence punishable under Sections 323/34 and 447 IPC but has refused to compound the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC as the same is not compoundable. 7. Being aggrieved with this the petitioners have preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition for quashing the said proceedings against them. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioners have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioners have already been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 and 447 IPC, therefore, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioners have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioners have already been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 and 447 IPC, therefore, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges against the petitioners in relation to offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. 10. 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 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 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. 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." 11. Having considered the facts and circumstances and looking to the fact that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have resolved their dispute amicably, there is no possibility of accused-petitioners being convicted in the case pending against them. When the dispute between the parties have already been settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 12. When the dispute between the parties have already been settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 12. Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the Metropolitan Magistrate No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Criminal Case No.792/2000-State v. Gokal Ram & Ors. are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******