Jitendra vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 19 May, 2017

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2578/2017

Jitendra Son of Shri Ram Gopal, by caste Kandera, Resident of
Jatwara, Tehsil Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur.

….Accused-Petitioner.

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through P.P.

…Respondent.

2. Manisha Daughter of Shri Ramswaroop, Resident of
Geejgarh, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

…Complainant-Respondent

DATE OF ORDER ::: 19th May, 2017

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

Mr. D K Dixit for the Petitioner.

Mr. Nitesh Pareek for the Respondent.

Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, PP.

Learned counsel for petitioner accused Shri D K Dixit submits

that petitioner accused and respondent No. 2 complainant are

husband and wife. The dispute between them is matrimonial in nature

which has been settled amicably. Compromise has already been

submitted before learned Trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, Sikrai,

District Dausa which has been verified and attested for offence under

Section 406 IPC. Since offence under Section 498A IPC is not

compoundable, therefore, learned Magistrate refused to attest the

compromise for offence under Section 498A IPC. He submits that

after compromise continuing criminal proceedings for offence under

Section 498A is abuse of process of the Court, therefore, the entire

criminal proceedings may be quashed. He submits that respondent
2
No. 2 complainant victim is also present in person before this Court.

Shri Nitesh Pareek learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No. 2 supported the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioner and submits that that respondent No. 2

complainant is present in person before this Court to whom he

identifies.

Learned PP. Shri Jitendra Shrimali also supported the

aforesaid submissions.

In the matter of Gyan Singh vs. State of Punjab

reported in (2012) 10 S.C.C. 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 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
3
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 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.”

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 i.e. learned Judicial Magistrate Sikrai, District Dausa which

has already been verified. The compromise for offence under Section

406 IPC has been attested. Since offence under Section 498A IPC is
4
not compoundable, therefore, learned Magistrate refused to attest the

compromise for this offence. In view of Gian Singh Vs. State of

Punjab (Supra) after compromise continuing criminal proceeding for

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

therefore, this misc. petition is allowed and the proceedings of

Criminal Case NO. 271/2015 (State Vs. Jitendra) for offence under

Section 498A IPC pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Sikarai,

District Dausa is quashed and set aside. Accordingly the misc.

petition is allowed.

[BANWARI LAL SHARMA], J.

Komal/81

Leave a Comment

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