Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 687 (RAJ)

Balkishan v. State of Rajasthan Anr.

2014-03-11

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - On the complaint filed by one Gulam Qadar resident of 1 R.K.M. 'A', Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court') has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B IPC vide order dated 01.04.2009 and has summoned the petitioners through arrest warrant. 2. During the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court complainant Gulam Qadar died and his legal representatives have pursued the proceedings. On 21.02.2014 a joint application was moved on behalf of the petitioners and the legal representatives of Gulam Qadar before the trial court with a prayer that as the petitioners and the legal representatives of Gulam Qadar have entered into a compromise and resolved their dispute amicably the proceedings pending against the petitioners may be quashed. The trial court has rejected the said application moved on behalf of the petitioners and the legal representatives of Gulam Qadar on the ground that as the petitioners have not been arrested in pursuance of the arrest warrant issued against them vide order dated 01.04.2009, no order is required to be passed on this application and as the offence punishable under Sections 467 and 468 IPC are not compoundable. 3. The petitioners has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition with a prayer that the parties have already entered into a compromise and the petitioners have already paid whole amount to the legal representatives of Gulam Qadar the proceedings pending against them before the trial court may kindly be quashed and set aside. Along with this application affidavits of legal representatives of Gulam Qadar who have been impleaded as respondent No.2/1 to 2/4 in this Criminal Misc. Petition, certifying the compromise has been placed on record. A compromise deed dated 18.02.2014, executed between the petitioners and the respondent Nos.2/1 to 2/4, and certified copy of the joint application moved on behalf of the parties before the trial court has also been placed on record. 4. Mr. Rajendra Soni-Advocate has put in his appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos.2/1 to 2/4 and submitted that the parties have already entered into a compromise and the respondent Nos.2/1 to 2/4 are not interested in continuing the proceedings against the petitioners before the trial court. Mr. 4. Mr. Rajendra Soni-Advocate has put in his appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos.2/1 to 2/4 and submitted that the parties have already entered into a compromise and the respondent Nos.2/1 to 2/4 are not interested in continuing the proceedings against the petitioners before the trial court. Mr. Soni has also confirmed execution of the affidavits, compromise deed and the joint application filed by on behalf of the parties before the trial court. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2/1 to 2/4 Mr. Soni further submits that if the proceedings against the petitioners before the trial court are quashed the respondent Nos.2/1 to 2/4 have no objection. 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. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victims 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 victims 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 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 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 looking to the fact that the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably, it is a fit case wherein the proceedings against the petitioners can be quashed. 8. 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. 8. 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 proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Case No.150/2009 titled as State v. Balkishan & Ors. , pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar are hereby quashed. Stay petition is also disposed of. *******