Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 672 (RAJ)

Nihal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2014-03-10

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the FIR No.156/2010 dated 20.05.2010 of Police Station, Udaimandir, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 463, 420, 464, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that dispute between the parties was in relation to a plot. However, now the petitioner and the complainant-respondent No.2 entered into a compromise and have decided to resolve their dispute amicably and, therefore, the impugned FIR and the proceedings related to it may kindly be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also confirm that parties have already entered into compromise and now the respondent No.2 is not willing to prosecute the petitioner for the offences alleged in the impugned FIR. 4. It is also stated by learned counsel for the parties that the parties have already submitted their compromise before the Civil Court where some litigation between the same parties in respect of the same land is going on and, therefore, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties the impugned FIR be quashed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. 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. 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. 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." 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the compromise entered between the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that when the parties have already resolve their dispute amicably and entered into a compromise the possibility of the conviction of the petitioner for the offence alleged in the impugned FIR is very remote.Hence this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the FIR No.156/2010 dated 20.05.2010 of Police Station, Udaimandir, District Jodhpur against the petitioner is quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.Stay petition is also disposed of.Petition allowed. *******