Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 912 (RAJ)

Virma Ram 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 petitioners with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 29/2012 dated 22.1.2012 of Police Station, Jaitaran, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 447, 427, 435 and 436/34 l.P.C. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in respect of the same incident another F.I.R. No. 28/2012 was filed against the petitioners at Police Station, Jaitaran, District Pali on 21.1.2012 and in the said F.I.R. both the parties have entered into compromise and on the basis of said compromise all the petitioner have been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in Sessions Cases No. 6/2013 vide judgment dated 28.1.2014. A photocopy of the judgment dated 28.1.2014 is also produced before this Court, which is taken on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when the parties have entered into compromise and on the basis of the said compromise the petitioner have already acquitted by the competent Criminal Court, the second F.I.R. in relation to the vary same incident may kindly be quashed and set aside. It is contended that the continuation of the proceedings in connection with impugned F.I.R. may result in disturbing the compromise entered into the parties. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also submitted that the F.I.R. in question is in relation to the very same incident for which the F.I.R. No. 28/2012 dated 21.1.2012 was lodged at Police Station, Jaitaran, District Pali and has also submitted that the parties have already entered into a compromise on the basis of said compromise the petitioner have already been acquitted by the competent Criminal Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also submitted that the respondent No. 2 does not want to pursue his complaint against the petitioners since the dispute between them have been resolved. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 6/2013 dated 28.1.2014 5. It is agreed by learned Counsel for parties that the F.I.R. No. 28/2012 dated 21.1.2012 and F.I.R. No. 29/2012 dated 22.1.2012 pertaining to the Police Station, Jaitaran, District Pali are in relation to the same incident. It is agreed by learned Counsel for parties that the F.I.R. No. 28/2012 dated 21.1.2012 and F.I.R. No. 29/2012 dated 22.1.2012 pertaining to the Police Station, Jaitaran, District Pali are in relation to the same incident. When the petitioners have already acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in connection with the F.I.R. No. 28/2012 on the basis of compromise entered into between the parities no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings in connection with F.I.R. No. 29/2012 dated 22.1.2012 of Police Station, Jaitaran, District Pali. 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. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint of 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. 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. 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 end 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 for exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. against the petitioners. 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 F.I.R. No. 29/2012 dated 22.1.2012 of Police Station, Jaitaran, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 447,427, 435 and 436/34 l.P.C. are hereby quashed.Stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******