Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 618 (RAJ)

Deepanshu Vagela v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-02-21

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
ORDER 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.32/2021 dated 11.08.2021 of Women Police Station, District Pratapgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 and 506 IPC. 2. In the instant case the respondent No.2 filed the impugned FIR against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 and 506 IPC are pending. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 and the petitioner have compromised the matter and resolved the matrimonial dispute between them amicably and decided to live separately. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the matrimonial dispute has already been amicably settled between the parties the impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner may kindly be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has conceded that the dispute between the respondent No.2 and petitioner has already been settled and both of them have decided to live separately and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences. 6. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 03.01.2022, compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the Investigating Officer, who is investigating into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR and the factual report dated 19.02.2022 of this effect has been submitted by learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 8. It is admitted that the matrimonial dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably and the same has been verified by the Investigating Officer. 9. Today also learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences as the matrimonial dispute has already been resolved between the parties. 10. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 29.09.2021 rendered in Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012) along with Krishnappa & Ors. Vs. 10. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 29.09.2021 rendered in Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012) along with Krishnappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.1488/2012), after taking into consideration its earlier decisions rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 ; Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and several other judgments has held as under:- '19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra- ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 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.' 11. In my opinion, the nature of the offences as alleged in the impugned FIR is private in nature. There is no reason to doubt that the complainant-respondent no.2 has not entered into compromise voluntarily and there is nothing adverse in respect of the conduct of the petitioners prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offences. 12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably and decided to live separately and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences, it is a fit case wherein the FIR pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 13. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal (supra) and in the facts and circumstances as noted above, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the FIR pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.32/2021 dated 11.08.2021 of Women Police Station, District Pratapgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 and 506 IPC is hereby quashed. 15. Stay petition is disposed of. 16. The factual report dated 19.02.2022 be taken on record.