Bhupendra vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 18 May, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1851 / 2017
Bhupendra S/o Shri Ramkishan B/c Gurjar, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Behind Police Station Bawal Distt. Rewari
(Haryana).

—-Petitioner/Accused
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through PP
2. Smt. Sheela W/o Shri Bhupendra D/o Shri Bijendra B/c
Gurjar, R/o Behind Police Station Bawal Distt. Rewari
(Haryana) Presently R/o Village Meerka Police Station
Kishangarhbas Distt. Alwar.

—-Respondents

__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. MK Saini on behalf of Mr. Harendra Singh
Sinsinwar
Public Prosecutor : Mr. Jitendra Shrimali
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Order
18/05/2017

Learned Counsel for petitioner/accused Mr. MK Saini

submits that petitioner is husband of respondent no.

2/complainant, the dispute between them is matrimonial in

nature which is private one and they have settled their

dispute amicably, compromise has already been submitted

before the Trial Court on 06.01.2017. Learned Trial Court

verified and attested the same and on the basis of

compromise petitioner has already been acquitted for offence

under Section 406 IPC as this offence is compoundable, since
(2 of 5)
[CRLMP-1851/2017]

offence under Section 498A is not compoundable, therefore

Learned Trial Court refused to attest the compromise for this

offence. He submits that after compromise no fruitful purpose

will be served continuing the criminal proceedings for offence

under Section 498A, therefore the entire proceedings of

Criminal Case No. 493/2012 pending before Learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, District

Alwar be quashed and set aside.

Learned PP Mr. Jitendra Shrimali also didn’t object

READ  Vijay Vaidh vs State on 6 June, 2017

in allowing this Misc. Petition.

I have considered the submissions made at bar.

In the matter of Gyan Singh Vs State of Punjab

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon’ble Supreme Court

observed that :-

“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
(3 of 5)
[CRLMP-1851/2017]

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

READ  Mahendra Kumar vs State & Ors on 16 May, 2017

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
(4 of 5)
[CRLMP-1851/2017]

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 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
(5 of 5)
[CRLMP-1851/2017]

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

READ  Karan Chamanji "Thakor & 2 vs State Of Gujarat & on 16 August, 2017

answer to the above question(s) is in

affirmative, the High Court shall be well

within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal

proceeding.”

Here in the case in hand, the dispute between

parties is matrimonial in nature which is private one, the

same has been settled amicably, compromise has already

been submitted before the Trial Court which has been verified

and attested for offence under Section 406 IPC, now after

compromise continuing criminal proceedings for offence

under Section 498A IPC is abuse of process of Court,

therefore in view of Gyan Singh’s judgment (supra), this

Misc. petition is allowed and criminal proceedings pending

against the present petitioner being Criminal Case No.

493/2012 pending before Learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar is quashed and set

aside on the basis of compromise.

Accordingly, the Misc. Petition is allowed.

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA)J.

Charu 50

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *