Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1009 (RAJ)

Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2021-07-02

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2021
ORDER 1. The instant misc. application has been filed for correction/modification in the order dated 15.12.2020 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No.3709/2020. 2. Counsel for the applicant submits that in the order dated 15.12.2020 inadvertently it has been mentioned that the compromise has arrived between the petitioners and respondent No.2, whereas factual position is that the respondent No.2 (the SHO concerned) and the petitioners had never entered into any compromise and rather the victim family of the deceased have settled the matter. Therefore, the necessary correction may be made. 3. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the applicant, the present misc. application is allowed. The order dated 15.12.2020 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition NO. 3709/2020 is hereby modified and be read as under: "This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the FIR No.308/2020 registered at Police Station Makrana, Distt. Nagaur for the offence under Sections 287, 337, 304-A IPC and all the consequential proceedings qua the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the family members of the deceased 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 287, 337, 304-A IPC. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties Mr. Rakesh Chotia learned counsel appearing for the family members of deceased, has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and resolved their dispute amicably and thy do not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioners in relation to offences punishable under Sections 287, 337, 304-A IPC. The Hon'ble 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. 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 predominatingly 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." Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioners and family members of the deceased 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. 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 criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.308/2020 registered at Police Station Makrana, Distt. Nagaur and all consequential proceedings for offence under Sections 287, 337, 304-A IPC against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Stay petition is disposed of."