Kajod Mal Gurjar And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 19 July, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CR. MISC. PETITION NO. 2593/2017.
1. Kajod Mal Gurjar S/o Late Shri Sujaram Gujar, R/o
Village Post Bagwada, Tehsil Amer, Distt. Jaipur
(Raj.)

2. Shankar Lal Gurjar S/o Late Shri Sujaram Gurjar,
R/o Village Post Bagwada, Tehsil Amer, Distt. Jaipur
(Raj.)

3. Panchi Devi W/o Late Shri Sujaram Gurjar, R/o
Village Post Bagwada, Tehsil Amer, Distt. Jaipur
(Raj.)

4. Babu Lal Gurjar S/o Late Shri Gomaram Gurjar, R/o
Village Post Bagwada, Tehsil Amer, Distt. Jaipur
(Raj.)
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through PP

2. Fattaram S/o Late Shri Bhagtaram Dhanka B/c
Dhanka, R/o Village Bagwada, Tehsil Amer, Police
Station Harmada, Distt. Jaipur (raj.)

For Petitioner(s) : Shri R.K. Kasana
For State : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek .P.P.
For Respondent(s) : Shri Kartar Singh

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
19/7/2017

Petitioners have filed this petition under

Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973

seeking quashing the FIR No. 277/2017 registered

at Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur for the

offence under Section 3, 5 of Scheduled Castes

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 and Section 354 Indian Penal Code 1860.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have

submitted that the parties have amicably settled

their dispute. Vide order dated 22.5.2017 parties

were directed to appear before the Area

Magistrate and the said court was directed to

furnish the report with regard to genuineness of

the compromise effected between the parties after

recording statements of the parties. In pursuance

to the above order, the Area Magistrate has sent

the report and has verified the compromise

effected between the parties.

Respondent No.2 is present in person and

has admitted the factum of compromise between

the parties and has stated that he has no

objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be

quashed.

In (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303,

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, it

has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:-

“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 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.”

Since, the parties have amicably settled their

dispute, no useful purpose would be served in allowing

the criminal proceedings to continue.

Accordingly, in view of compromise

effected between the parties, this petition is

allowed. FIR No. 277/2017 registered at Police

Station Harmada, District Jaipur for the offence

under Section 3, 5 of Scheduled Castes

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 and Section 354 Indian Penal Code 1860 and

all consequential proceedings arising therefrom

are quashed.

(SABINA)J.

Mrg.

Leave a Comment

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