Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 910 (RAJ)

Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2014-04-11

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. No. 307/2012 of Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Section 379 of l.P.C. read with Section 67 of I.T. Act. 2. On 7.1.2014, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted before this Court that the parties have already entered into a compromise and they should allowed to submit the said compromise before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of verification of compromise. On the said request of learned Counsel for the parties this Court has directed to the petitioner as well as the respondent No, 2 to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 20.1,2014 for the purpose of submitting the said compromise and has also directed the Investigating Officer to verify the said compromise and submit the factual report before this Court of 27.1.2014, In pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 7.1.2014 the Investigating Officer through learned Public Prosecutor has filed a factual report dated 23,1,2014, In which It is mentioned that both the parties have submitted a compromise before him and has also verified the compromise. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the matter has already been compromised between the parties the F.I.R in question may kindly be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also confirmed that the parties have already entered into compromise and the respondent No. 2 has already received all the amount which was taken out from his bank account and, therefore, now he does not want to pursue the complaint against the petitioner. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. As per the submission advanced by the Counsel for the parties the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No. 2 does not want to continue the proceedings against the petitioner as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties. 7. 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. 7. 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. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim has 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 metal 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 ration to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in the 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 form 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. 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 of 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." 8. 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 petitioner can be quashed. 9. 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 F.I.R No. 307/2012 of Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Section 379 of l.P.C. read with Section 67 of I.T. Act are hereby quashed.Stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******