Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 846 (RAJ)

Wasim Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-03-14

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against them before the Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in Criminal Original Case No. 22415/2017 (arising out of FIR No. 76/2017 of Police Station Sadar Kotwali, District Jodhpur), whereby the trial court vide order dated 30.10.2018 has not attested the compromise entered between the parties for the offence punishable under Section 435 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondents Nos. 2 & 3, the FIR No. 76/2017 was registered at Police Station Sadar Kotwali, District Jodhpur against the petitioners. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 435, 436 & 120-B IPC. Thereafter the trial Court framed the charge against the petitioners only for offence punishable under Section 435 IPC. 3. During the pendency of the trial, a compromise application was preferred on behalf of the parties while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioners may be terminated. The trial court vide order dated 30.10.2018 refused to allow the parties to compound the offences punishable under Section 435 IPC. 4. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the said proceedings against them. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the complainant-respondents Nos. 2 & 3 and the petitioners have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 435 IPC. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 435 IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 & 3 have admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and resolved their dispute amicably and the respondents Nos. 2 & 3 do not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioners in relation to offences punishable under Section 435 IPC. 7. The Honble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2 & 3 do not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioners in relation to offences punishable under Section 435 IPC. 7. The Honble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. 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 victims 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." 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 & 3 have settled their dispute amicably, there is no possibility of accused-petitioners being convicted in the case pending against them. When once the disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 9. Keeping in view the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in Gian Singhs 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. 10. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Criminal Original Case No. 22415/2017 (arising out of FIR No. 76/2017 of Police Station Sadar Kotwali, District Jodhpur) are hereby quashed. 11. Stay petition is disposed of.