Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 917 (RAJ)

Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2018-04-05

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No.14/2015 whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The said revision petition was filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Osian (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal Reference No.1/09 whereby, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. The allegations against the petitioners is to the effect that they prepared forged consent letter of the complainant Ram Singh, his brothers and his mother for the purpose of obtaining electricity connection on the agriculture land, which was recorded in the names of petitioners and the complainant and others. The complainant has alleged that he, his brothers and his mother have not given any consent letter in the office of Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Department and the petitioners have prepared a forged consent letter and submitted it before the Electricity Department and on the basis of it have obtained the electricity connection for the agriculture field, in which the complainant, his brothers and his mother were also co-sharers. 3. The police after thorough investigation have found that the consent letter submitted by the petitioners in the office of Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Department contains forged signatures of the complainant - Ram Singh, his brothers and his mother. The said conclusion was arrived at by the police on the basis of the report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory. Pursuant to the charge-sheet filed by the police the trial court vide impugned order dated 27.02.2013 took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and the revision petition preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the trial court has also been dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 19.02.2018. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after filing of charge-sheet against the petitioners and after taking cognizance against them by the trial court in the year 2013, the petitioners and the complainant-respondent No.2, his brothers and his mother have entered into a compromise and prayed before the trial court that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners be terminated. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that as the cognizance order was under challenge before the revisional court, the trial court has not passed any order on the compromise filed before it on behalf of the parties and the same was sent to record. 5. It is submitted that even before the revisional court also the petitioners and the complainant-respondent No.2, his brothers and his mother have prayed that the parties have arrived at a compromise and, therefore, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners be terminated but the revisional court has not taken into consideration the said compromise and has proceeded to pass the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as the dispute between the parties was of trivial in nature and the petitioners have filed the consent letter on behalf of the respondent No.2, his brothers and his mother under a bonafide impression that they will not object to it after putting their thumb impression instead of the respondent No.2 and others, however, on account of the some minor dispute the respondent No.2 has filed the criminal complaint against the petitioners which resulted in the cognizance order. It is contended that the petitioners and the respondent No.2 are close relatives as the petitioners are real uncle of the respondent No.2 and now the dispute between them has amicably been settled, therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners be terminated. It is also contended that if the criminal proceedings continues against the petitioners, it may effect the cordial relations and peace in the family. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and the complainant-respondent No.2 is present in person have submitted that the respondent No.2 has filed the criminal complaint against the petitioners due to some minor dispute in their family and now he does not want to press the complaint filed by him against them. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and the complainant-respondent No.2 is present in person have submitted that the respondent No.2 has filed the criminal complaint against the petitioners due to some minor dispute in their family and now he does not want to press the complaint filed by him against them. It is also submitted by the respondent No.2 that now he came to know that the petitioners have put the thumb impression of him, his brothers and his mother on the consent letter under a bonafide impression and they have no malafide intention. 8. It is also submitted by the respondent No.2 that as a matter of fact earlier the agriculture land was in the joint Khatedari of the petitioners and him, his brothers and his mother but now the partition have already taken place and they are in possession of their respective shares and no dispute is pending between them. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioners to terminate the criminal proceedings against them on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is admitted that the dispute between the parties have already been settled and the respondent No.2 filed application before the courts below with a prayer for quashing the prosecution against the petitioners. 11. Today also learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as the respondent No.2 present in person have submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to continue the proceedings against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 9 JT 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. 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. 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." 13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the real dispute between the parties was in relation to partition of agriculture land and now the partition of the same has been carried out and the petitioners and the respondent are living peacefully and the respondent No.2 has moved application before the courts below for withdrawal of the complaint against the petitioners for the offences punishable offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, 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. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case and in the facts and circumstances as noted above this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Reference No.1/09 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Osian as well as in Criminal Revision Petition No.14/2015 pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur are hereby quashed. Stay petition is disposed of.