Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 493 (RAJ)

Peer Bux v. State, Through PP

2019-02-11

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioners and respondent No.2 - complainant are sharing a close relationship, as respondent No.2 is the real brother-in-law of petitioner No.1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has demonstrated that the whole dispute was regarding a Will, by which the inheritance was supposed to take place. The resolution of the present dispute in this case is basically a resolution of family dispute, whereby the parties have amicably settled the dispute. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the nature of dispute being a family dispute calls for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings, in light of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Anr., 2012 10 SCC 303 at the appellate stage also. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has, however, relied upon the judgment of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2018 1 SCC(Cri) 1 whereby 11 parameters have been laid down. The relevant para 15 of the said judgment reads as follows :- "15 The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions : (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. " 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that in light of the aforequoted precedent law, the dispute cannot be resolved at the appellate stage by way of a compromise. It is also contended that pleadings of the case are very poor, and that, the trial court has also awarded a sentence of five years. Thus, at this stage, the case does not call for any interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the application for closing the case on the basis of compromise has not been decided by the learned court below, and hence, there is no impugned order, which could have been challenged before this Court. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the application for closing the case on the basis of compromise has not been decided by the learned court below, and hence, there is no impugned order, which could have been challenged before this Court. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case along with the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court finds that since the petitioners and the respondent No.2 are closely related family members and have resolved the dispute regarding the Will, it clearly reflects that they are neither criminals nor they have committed any act, which would be detrimental to the larger interest of the society and public at large. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir (supra) as cited by learned Public Prosecutor, has also laid down that quashing of the FIR ultimately has to revolve around the facts and circumstances of each case, and no exhaustive elaboration of principle can be formulated, as stated in para 15 (v) of the said precedent law. 9. This Court also finds that though learned court below has not finally closed the issue on compromise but since the application was preferred well in time and has not been decided. This Court believes that the intervention of this Court is warranted, in light of the fact that criminal proceeding between the close relatives on personal ground will not only waste the precious time of the Court but also unnecessarily utilize the energies of the system. 10. Thus, after examining the peculiar facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, which needs to be closed in light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra). 11. Consequently, the present misc. petition is allowed and the proceeding pertaining to criminal regular Appeal No.10/2018 (Peer Bux & Ors. Vs. State) arising out of FIR No.569/2007 lodged at P.S. Hanumangarh Junction District Hanumangarh are quashed, qua the petitioners.