Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 391 (RAJ)

Bhawani Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2017-02-03

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Case No. 04/2016 pending against them before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaitaran (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'). 2. The petitioners are facing trial in the aforesaid sessions case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 308/34 IPC and Section 3/27 of the Arms Act. During the course of trial, the petitioners as well as the complainant respondent No. 2 have submitted an application before the trial court for compounding the aforesaid offences, however, the trial court vide order dated 28.11.2016 has compounded the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC but refused to compound the offences punishable under Sections 308/34 IPC and Section 3/27 of the Arms Act on the ground that the same are not compoundable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 has already been amicably settled through compromise and on the basis of it, the trial court has already compounded the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. It is contended that the statement of the complainant has already been recorded before the trial court as P.W. -2, wherein, he has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. It is also contended that in the said statement, the complainant has specifically stated that he did not identify those persons, who fired gun shot at the time of incident. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the matter has been compromised between the parties and the complainant himself has not supported the prosecution story during the course of trial, there is remote possibility of conviction of the petitioners and therefore the proceedings of Sessions Case No. 04/2016 pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaitaran against the petitioners be quashed and terminated. 5. The respondent No. 2 is represented through his counsel Mr. Aklavya Bhansali, who has also submitted that now the matter between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 has already been amicably settled and he has no objection if the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners are quashed. 6. Along with this criminal misc. 5. The respondent No. 2 is represented through his counsel Mr. Aklavya Bhansali, who has also submitted that now the matter between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 has already been amicably settled and he has no objection if the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners are quashed. 6. Along with this criminal misc. petition, a sworn affidavit of the complainant respondent No. 2 has also been filed, wherein, it is stated that the matter has now been compromised between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 and, therefore, he does not want to continue the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that in case, the proceedings pending against the petitioners before the trial court are quashed by this Court, then, some cost may be imposed upon them. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 9. Though in the FIR as well as in the police statement, the respondent No. 2 has specifically stated that the petitioners had assaulted him on 23.12.2015 at Bar and also fired gun shot with the intention to kill him, however, during the course of police statement, though he has stated that four persons assaulted him and fired gun shot with the intention to kill him, but he has specifically stated that the accused persons were not known to him and the police has not conducted any identification parade to identify the accused persons. He has also stated that the accused persons did not fire any gun shot on him during scuffle. 10. Looking to the fact that the complainant himself has stated in his court statement that no gun shot was fired by the accused persons and no such injury has been received by him, it can be said that the chances of conviction of the petitioners are very remote in this case. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012 (9) SC - 426 has held as below:- "57. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. 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. 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. 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." 12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have already settled their dispute by way of compromise, then, there is no possibility of accused-petitioners being convicted in the case pending against them and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court. 13. 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 petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaitaran in Sessions Case No. 04/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 308/34 IPC and Section 3/27 of the Arms Act are hereby quashed. 15. However, the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor regarding imposing cost upon the petitioners is having merit. 16. Accordingly, all the petitioners are directed to deposit a cost of Rs. Sessions Judge, Jaitaran in Sessions Case No. 04/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 308/34 IPC and Section 3/27 of the Arms Act are hereby quashed. 15. However, the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor regarding imposing cost upon the petitioners is having merit. 16. Accordingly, all the petitioners are directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 10,000/- each with the Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of two weeks from today and the proof of depositing of the said cost be furnished to the trial court.