Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 122 (RAJ)

Dharmendra Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-01-13

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR No.57/2021 of Police Station Khedapa, District Jodhpur Rural for the offences under Sections 451 and 323 of IPC. 2. The aforesaid FIR has been lodged by the respondent No.2, who is cousin brother of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was raising some construction in his house at a place which is disputed and when the complainant-respondent No.2 tried to stop him, he came to his house and attacked on him, in which, his ear got badly injured. On receiving the report, the police has recorded statements of the witnesses. 3. The petitioner, who is serving in Indian Army, has filed this criminal misc. petition on the ground that since compromise has been arrived at between the parties, the impugned FIR may be quashed. 4. After noting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court has directed the police to verify the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. The police has submitted a report, wherein the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties has been verified. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties; after going through the case diary as well as the injury report, it appears that the police has found case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 326 IPC. 6. The petitioner and the complainant-respondent No.2 are cousin brothers and neighbours as well. It appears that some dispute is going on between the parties and in relation to that, a case is also pending in the revenue court. Though, the petitioner had inflicted grievous injury on the ear of the complainant, but no weapon was used by him as he chewed the complainant's ear by his teeth. 7. Be that as it may, the petitioner and the complainant are near relatives and once they have decided to settle the dispute amicably, this Court deems it fit to quash the impugned FIR relying on the principles laid down by 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. The Hon'ble 8. Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held as below:- "57. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012 (9) SC 426. The Hon'ble 8. Apex Court in the aforesaid case 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 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. 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." 9. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioner and the complainant-respondent No.2 are cousin brothers and they have settled their dispute amicably, there is no possibility of the petitioner being convicted in the matter. 10. 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 impugned FIR can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.57/2021 lodged at Police Station Khedapa, Jodhpur Rural against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 451, 323 and 326 IPC is hereby quashed. 12. Stay petition is disposed of.