Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 478 (RAJ)

VIJAY VARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2019-02-11

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT VIJAY BISHNOI, J. 1. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for setting aside the order of standing warrant of arrest passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') vide order dated 25.04.2015 pursuant to the order dated 24.04.2015 as well as quashing the FIR No.132/2012 of Women Police Station, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. 2. In the instant case respondent-Sangeeta filed a complaint in the trial court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same was forwarded to Women Police Station, District Sri Ganganagar, where the impugned FIR against was registered by the police against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the complaint filed on behalf of respondent-Sangeeta, proceedings under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC are pending however, the trial court issued standing warrant of arrest against the petitioner vide order dated 25.04.2015 pursuant to the order dated 24.04.2015. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent-Sangeeta and the petitioner have compromised the matter and resolved the matrimonial dispute between them amicably. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the matrimonial dispute has already been amicably settled between the parties the order of standing warrant of arrest passed by the trial court vide order dated 25.04.2015 pursuant to the order dated 24.04.2015 against the petitioner may kindly be set aside and the impugned FIR No.132/2012 of Women Police Station, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the petitioner may kindly be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent-Sangeeta has conceded that the matrimonial dispute between respondent-Sangeeta and petitioner has already been settled and respondent-Sangeeta has no objection if the order of standing warrant of arrest passed by the trial court be set aside and the impugned FIR be quashed. 6. Today, petitioner-Vijay Verma and respondent-Sangeeta, present in person, have submitted the written compromise arrived at between them and the same is verified by the Dy. Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur today itself. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 8. 6. Today, petitioner-Vijay Verma and respondent-Sangeeta, present in person, have submitted the written compromise arrived at between them and the same is verified by the Dy. Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur today itself. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 8. It is admitted that the matrimonial dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably and the same has been verified by the Dy. Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. 9. Today, also learned counsel for respondent-Sangeeta as well as respondent-Sangeeta herself have categorically submitted that she does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR No.132/2012 of Women Police Station, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC as the matrimonial dispute has already been resolved between the parties and she has no objection if the order of standing warrant of arrest passed by the trial court vide order dated 25.04.2015 pursuant to the order dated 24.04.2015 be set aside. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in, (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. 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 question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioner and respondent-Sangeeta have decided to live separately and in pursuance of that appropriate proceedings has already been completed, respondent-Sangeta does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR No.132/2012 of Women Police Station, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and she has no objection if the order of standing warrant of arrest passed by the trial court vide order dated 25.04.2015 pursuant to the order dated 24.04.2015 be set aside, 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. 12. 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 FIR as well as the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 13. Accordingly, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1758/2013 is allowed and the impugned FIR No.132/2012 of Women Police Station, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC is hereby quashed. 14. In view of the above fact that the impugned FIR is quashed, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1198/2015 is disposed of and the order of standing warrant of arrest passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated order dated 25.04.2015 pursuant to the order dated 24.04.2015 is set aside. 15. Stay petitions are disposed of.