Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2004 (RAJ)

Pushpa Biyani v. State of Rajasthan

2021-10-22

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2021
ORDER 1. The present misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners for quashing FIR No.264/2017 registered at Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur (Rural) on 25.07.2017 for the offences under Sections 420 & 406 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant-Madho Singh has expired during pendency of the criminal proceedings and his two sons namely, Himmat Singh and Narendra Singh and five daughters of Late Shri Madho Singh have entered into a compromise with the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the compromise so arrived at between the parties was placed before this Court on 12.08.2021 and this Court had directed the parties to file their compromise before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to verify and attest the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners as well as two sons of the complainant-Late Shri Madho Singh had appeared before the Registrar (Judicial) on 12.08.2021 and the relevant report with regard to compromise has also been submitted before this Court by the Registrar (Judicial) vide his report dated 12.08.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also filed a misc. application No.03/2021 whereby additional documents have been placed on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an affidavit has duly been executed by all the legal heirs of the complainant-Late Shir Madho Singh and it has been specifically mentioned by them that as per terms of the compromise, all actions have been taken by the parties and even registered sale deed has already been executed in favour of the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, the present matter may be disposed of by quashing the FIR No.264/2017. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged dispute between the complainant and the petitioners is in respect of a property transaction and as such, it is a dispute of civil nature and as such, it does not affect the society at all. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the dispute is of a civil nature and offences are of non-compoundable nature, the same can be decided by this Court by exercising inherent powers as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the dispute is of a civil nature and offences are of non-compoundable nature, the same can be decided by this Court by exercising inherent powers as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ]. 10. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the fact of compromise being entered between the parties. 11. Learned counsel further admits that terms of the compromise like payment, etc. has also been acted upon. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prayer made in the petition can be decided by this Court as per the law laid down by the Apex Court. 13. This Court finds that the Apex Court in case of Ramgopal & Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos.1488 & 1489/2012 decided on 29.09.2021, has again reiterated the principles for compounding the non-compoundable offences while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. The relevant para of the judgment passed in the case of Ramgopal & Ors. Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) is quoted hereunder:- "19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable1 within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure or vested in this Court Under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the Accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the Accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations." 15. This Court finds that the alleged offences levelled against the petitioners are in respect of transaction of land and further the dispute appears to be of purely civil nature and furthermore the parties have already entered into compromise and accordingly, this Court keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal & Ors. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), deems it proper to quash the FIR No.264/2017 dated 25.07.2017, registered at Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur (Rural). 16. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands allowed.