Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 50 (CHH)

Rinku Bhatia v. State of Chhattisgarh

2022-01-25

RAJANI DUBEY

body2022
JUDGMENT : Rajani Dubey, J. Heard. 1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the criminal proceedings in connection with FIR No. 318/2010, registered at police station Golbazar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G., and continuation of Criminal Proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 r/w Section 120B of IPC in Criminal Case No. 2974/2010 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2. It is contended that both the parties have settled the dispute and the statements of the parties have been recorded and they have contended that they do not want to further continue with the criminal case as they have entered into the compromise, therefore, the proceedings of the criminal case may be quashed. Both the parties have filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. for permission to enter into compromise and application under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. for culminating the case upon compromise, copy of the same is being filed as Annexure-P/2. 3. As per the case of the complainant, a first Information report was lodged and Crime No. 318/2010 was registered against the petitioner and one Kara Relwani under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC. The allegation upon the accused persons was with respect to sale transfer of one land situated in the city of Raipur. The copy of the FIR in Crime No. 318/2010 is filed herewith as Annexure-P/1. 4. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) Vol. 10 SCC 303, has stated that the position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding of FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power 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. 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 in question and has laid down the above principles and held that: "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." 5. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. 6. Thus, after carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accuse had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement and in view of the statement made by the respondent No. 3, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and the proceedings emanating thereupon needs to be quashed 7. The CRMP stands allowed. The FIR No. 318/2010 registered against the petitioner at Police Station Golbazar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. and continuation of Criminal Proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 r/w Section 120B of IPC in Criminal Case No. 2974/2010 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District-Raipur, C.G. are hereby quashed. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.