Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 547 (RAJ)

Pack Print v. State of Rajasthan

2016-04-20

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.321/2014 dated 18.09.2014 of Police Station, Sojat City, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 63, 65 67-A of Copy Right Act. 2. In the instant case the complainant respondent No.2 filed a complaint while stating that he is doing business of Heena powder (esganh) in the name of Dariyav Cosmetics. It is alleged that he has given order of printing of packaging material to the petitioner-firm Pack Print situated at Jodhpur and paid advance money to the said company. The said company after printing the said packaging material has not supplied it to him but has supplied it to Ranawat Mehndi Center and Bherunath Kirana Store and those firms are misusing the packaging material of the complainant-firm. The said complaint of the complainant-respondent No.2 was sent for investigation to the police which resulted in registration of impugned FIR against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 63, 65 67-A of Copy Right Act. 3. During the pendency of the investigation, the parties have entered into compromise and this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2449/2014 vide order dated 05.04.2016 has directed the parties concerned to appear before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of verification of the compromise arrived at between them. 4. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 05.04.2016 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2449/2014, parties have appeared before the Investigating Officer and submitted compromise deed and the same have been verified by the Investigating Officer, who is investigating into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR and the factual report dated 19.04.2016 of this effect has been submitted by learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Learned counsel for the parties have argued that in fact due to some communication gap the printing material of the complainant-firm was wrongly supplied to the other firms viz. Ranawat Mehandi Center and Bherunath Kirana Store and the complainant under wrong impression that the printing-firm has deliberately supplied the packaging material belonging to him to the said other firms has filed impugned FIR. Ranawat Mehandi Center and Bherunath Kirana Store and the complainant under wrong impression that the printing-firm has deliberately supplied the packaging material belonging to him to the said other firms has filed impugned FIR. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that now the misunderstanding has been cleared and the petitioners and the complainant-respondent No.2 have entered into compromise, therefore, looking to the said compromise the impugned FIR may kindly be quashed. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer but frankly admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and the same has also been verified by the concerned Investigating Officer. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. It is admitted that the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably and the same have been verified by the Investigating Officer. Today also learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties. 8. 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. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. 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." 9. From the perusal of the complaint as well as compromise deed executed between the parties, it appears that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the complainant under impression that the printing-firm has deliberately supplied the printing material belonging to his firm to other firms, however, now the complainant has realised that the said action of the printing firm was not deliberate but was a bona fide mistake. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, it is a fit case wherein the FIR pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. 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 these criminal misc. petitions are allowed and the FIR No.321/2014 dated 18.09.2014 of Police Station, Sojat City, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 63, 65 67-A of Copy Right Act is hereby quashed. Stay petition is disposed of. The factual report dated 19.04.2016 be taken on record.