Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1639 (RAJ)

Tarsem Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2023-09-02

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Kuldeep Mathur, J.) : Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and complainant/respondent No. 2 have entered into a compromise. Learned counsel submitted that the complainant has decided not to pursue the allegations of sexual assault - rape against the present petitioners, thus, the possibility of the petitioners being convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(N) and 427 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences as continuing the trial would amount to adding one more criminal case to already burdened criminal courts. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, prayed that the KIR No. 162/2023 registered at Police Station Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar may be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2 admitted that the parties have entered into a compromise and resolve the disputes amicably. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2 does not want to press the charge against the present petitioner in relation to offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(N) and 427 IPC. 5. Learned counsels for the petitioner has submitted the following order for consideration passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 4119/2021 decided on 06.04.2022 (Dhabba Nath v. State of Rajasthan), which reads as follows:— “1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No. 94/2021 registered at Police Station Gida, District Barmer for the offences punishable under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 67 of the I.T. Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of investigation, the petitioner and the complainant have entered into a compromise and thus, no dispute remains pending between them and the complainant does not wish to continue with the present litigation. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the compromise in question has been produced before the Investigating Officer, who has verified the factum of compromise and the same has been executed without any force or coercion. 4. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the compromise in question has been produced before the Investigating Officer, who has verified the factum of compromise and the same has been executed without any force or coercion. 4. Learned counsel submits that the complaint in question came be to be lodged by the complainant on account of an audio of the conversation between the petitioner and complainant getting viral and now the parties have decided to resolve the dispute having regard to the fact that the petitioner and complainant are close relatives. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant also accepts the fact of the compromise and submits, that even the husband of the prosecutrix/complainant has signed the compromise. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering that the complainant is aunt (Mami) of the present petitioner and also considering that the FIR in question was lodged under social pressure and also finding that the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by the Larger Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 CLJ (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal, [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : AIR 1992 SC 604 ], the aforesaid FIR is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. 7. In view of the above; this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No. 94/2021 registered at Police Station Gida, District Barmer is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow. 8. The stay application also stands disposed of.” 6. Reliance was also placed on the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kapil Gupta v. NCT of Delhi, (Criminal Appeal No. 1217/2022) wherein, it was held that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved. The High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. This Court has also taken into consideration, as to whether, the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship. 7. This Court has also taken into consideration, as to whether, the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : 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. 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. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the. 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.” 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have settled their disputes amicably, there is no possibility of accused-petitioners being convicted in the case pending against them. Once the disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 9. 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 petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 10. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No. 162/2023 registered at Police Station Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar and the entire criminal proceedings pursuant thereto for offence under Secs. 376, 376(2)(N) and 127 IPC. against the petitioners are here by quashed. Stay petition also stands disposed of.