Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 156 (RAJ)

Sandeep v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-19

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing FIR No.51/2014 of Police Station, Swaroopganj, District Sirohi for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.2. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.3.2014, the respondent No.2 filed a compliant at Police Station, Swaroopganj, District Sirohi with the allegation that a parcel containing mobile phones amounting to Rs. 1,83,454/- was booked from Jaipur in Dashmesh Cargo and on 4.2.2014 was unloaded at Local Franchise at Hariom Travels. It is alleged in the complaint that the said parcel containing 22 mobile phones was stolen on 4.2.2014 by some unknown person and today he came to know that the said parcel is lying in the laboratory of M/s Sanjay Medical Store, Swaroopganj. On receipt of the said complaint, the police registered impugned FIR No.51/2014 at Police Station Swaroopganj, District Sirohi for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C.. During the pendency of investigation, the petitioners as well as the respondent No.2 entered into compromise and moved an application to the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi wherein the complainant has mentioned that parcel containing 22 mobiles was wrongly delivered at the shop of complainant and he has filed the complaint against the petitioners due to some misunderstanding and now he does not want to press the said complaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parcel of mobile has wrongly been delivered in the shop of petitioners and the petitioners have not committed the offence of theft as alleged in the FIR. It is contended that the misunderstanding between the petitioners and respondent No.2 has now been removed. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. is compoundable and complainant does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioners in the impugned FIR, therefore, the same may be quashed by exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. The petitioners and respondent No.2 are present in person and have been identified by their counsels. They submitted that dispute between them has already been settled. The respondent No.2 has stated that he does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioners and he has no objection, if the impugned FIR is quashed. The petitioners and respondent No.2 are present in person and have been identified by their counsels. They submitted that dispute between them has already been settled. The respondent No.2 has stated that he does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioners and he has no objection, if the impugned FIR is quashed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR as well as the copy of affidavit submitted by the respondent No.2 and the copy of letter written by him to the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi. 6. In the above mentioned affidavit and letter, it is clearly mentioned that the respondent No.2 has lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioners on account of some misunderstanding as the parcel of the mobile was wrongly delivered at the petitioners' shop and the petitioners have not committed the offence of theft. It is informed by learned counsel for the parties that 19 mobiles phones, recovered at the instance of the petitioners, have been delivered to the respondent No.2 on Supurdaginama by the lower court with the consent of petitioners and payment of remaining three mobile phones have already been made to the respondent No.2. 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 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 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 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." 8. Looking to the fact that petitioners and respondent No.2 have entered into a compromise and 19 mobile phones have already been received by the respondent No.2 and payment of 3 mobile phones has been made to the respondent No.2 by the petitioners, there is no likelihood that the petitioners will be convicted, if they put to trial for the offence punishable under Sections 379 I.P.C. 9. Hence, looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra), this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No.51/2014 of Police Station Swaroopganj, District Sirohi is quashed. The factual report dated 13.1.2015 be taken on record.Petition allowed. *******