Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1371 (RAJ)

Manju v. State of Rajasthan

2018-05-28

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.01/2018 dated 08.01.2018 of Police Station Ahore, District Jalore for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 336 and 34 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that at the instance of respondent No.2, the FIR No.01/2018 dated 08.01.2018 was registered at Police Station Ahore, District Jalore for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 336 and 34 IPC. 3. Petitioners are present in person and submit that on the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, proceedings under Sections 341, 323, 336 and 34 IPC are pending. It is further contended by the petitioners that the respondent No.2 and the petitioners have compromised the matter and resolved the dispute between them amicably. 4. Petitioners, present in person, have argued that since the dispute has already been amicably settled between them and the respondent No.2, the impugned FIR lodged against them may kindly be quashed. 5. Respondent No.2 is present in person and submits that as the dispute between him and the petitioners has already been settled by mutual consent, he does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR against the petitioners and he has no objection if the impugned FIR lodged against the petitioners be quashed. 6. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 10.05.2018, compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the Investigating Officer, who is investigating into the allegations levelled in the impugned and the factual report dated 27.05.2018 of this effect has been submitted by learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Heard parties present in person as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 8. It is admitted that the dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably by mutual consent and the same has been verified by the Investigating Officer. 9. Today also the respondent No.2 present in person categorically submits that he does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR as the dispute has already been resolved between him and the petitioners. 10. The Honble 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. 10. The Honble 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 question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 11. It is noticed that the dispute between the parties was in relation to one drainage line, wherein the respondent No.2 has alleged that when he stopped the petitioners from releasing water in drainage line situated in front of his shop, they attacked on him and bit his ring finger. It seems that now the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably by mutual consent and the same has been verified by the Investigating Officer. 12. 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 for the aforesaid offences, it is a fit case wherein the FIR pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 13. 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 FIR No.01/2018 dated 08.01.2018 of Police Station Ahore, District Jalore for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 336 and 34 IPC is hereby quashed. 14. Stay petition is disposed of. 15. petition is allowed and the FIR No.01/2018 dated 08.01.2018 of Police Station Ahore, District Jalore for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 336 and 34 IPC is hereby quashed. 14. Stay petition is disposed of. 15. The factual report dated 27.05.2018 be taken on record.