Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 836 (RAJ)

Ashok v. State of Rajasthan

2014-04-03

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 291/2013 of Police Station, Mandore, District Jodhpur lodged against the petitioner at the instance of the respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 365, 354, 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 has submitted that both the parties have amicable resolved their dispute and has entered into compromise. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to continue the proceedings against the petitioner in connection with the impugned F.I.R. and he has no objection if the impugned F.I.R. is quashed. 4. A photocopy of the compromise entered into between the petitioner and be respondent No.2 dated 2.3.2014 is also produced on record. The copies of the affidavits of the respondent No.2-Pokar Das, wife of the respondent No. 2-Pani Devi as well as daughter-in-law of the respondent No.2-Durga Devi, has also been produced, wherein it is stated that the respondent lo.2-Pokar Das, wife of the respondent No.2-Pani Devi as well as daughter-in-law of the respondent No.2-Durga Devi, does not want to continue the proceedings against the petitioner as they have arrived at compromise with the Petitioner. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available n 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 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. 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.l.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 proceeding 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 transaction 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 proceeding 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 the fact that the petitioners and complainant are of the same village and cast and it is mentioned in the complaint that earlier also on several occasions part if had disputes between them, it seems that the present complaint against the petitioners is out come of series of disputes between the parties. However when the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably forever, it is a fit case wherein the F.I.R. can be quashed. 8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh case (supra) in the facts and circumstances as noted above this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 291/2013 of Police Station, Mandore, District Jodhpur is hereby quashed.Stay petition is disposed of.Petition allowed. *******