Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 699 (RAJ)

Anindo Banerjee v. State of Rajasthan

2015-03-24

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer that the proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No.89/2009 titled as State of Rajasthan v. Anindo Banerjee & Ors. (arising out of FIR No.104/1998 of Police Station, Sardarpura, District Jodhpur) may be quashed qua the petitioner. The trial court vide order dated 24.10.2013 has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC as the same is not compoundable. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, the FIR No.104/1998 has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Sardarpura, District Jodhpur. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC in the trial court wherein the trial is pending for the aforesaid offences. During the pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be terminated. The trial court vide order dated 24.10.2013 allowed the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC, however, rejected the application so far it relates to compounding the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. 3. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have decided to live separately by mutual consent and in this regard, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have filed a joint application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing Civil Original Case No.220/2012, wherein the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the family court') vide order dated 21.02.2013 has passed a divorce decree. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and decided to live separately and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. 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 summarized 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. 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 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. 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 questions 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 petitioner and respondent No.2 have decided to live separately and in pursuance of that a divorce decree has also been passed by the family court, there is no possibility of accused-petitioner being convicted in the case pending against him. When once the matrimonial disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 8. Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Regular Case No.89/2009 titled as State of Rajasthan v. Anindo Banerjee & Ors. (arising out of FIR No.104/1998 of Police Station, Sardarpura, District Jodhpur) are hereby quashed qua the petitioner. Stay petition also stands disposed of. Petition allowed.