Ritesh Tiwari vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 11 August, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CR. MISC. PETITION NO.4239/2017.
Ritesh Tiwari S/o Shri Tyagraj Tiwar B/c Brahmin,
Aged About 41 Years, R/o 14/744, Street No. R-8, SBI
Colony, Vinoba Nagar, Chattisgarh.
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

2. Smt. Meghna W/o Shri Ritesh Tiwari D/o Shri Lalit
Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Sankhla Colony,
Beawar, Distt. Ajmer (raj.) At Present She is Residing
At Flat No. 202 Dunhill Towers, Charkop Village,
Kandivali West, Mumbai (maharastra)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Aatish Jain
For State : Shri Jitendra Shrimalee, P.P.
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
11/8/2017

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section

482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of

the FIR No. 456/2012 registered at Police Station

Beawar City, District Ajmer for the offences under

Section 498A and 406 Indian Penal Code 1860.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that parties have amicably settled their matrimonial

dispute. Compromise effected between the parties

was produced before the trial court. Vide order dated

26.5.2017 trial court accepted the compromise under

Section 406 IPC but is proceeding the trial qua offence

under Section 498A IPC as it is not compoundable.
Since the order dated 26.5.2017 was passed by

the trial court in the presence of respondent No.2,

service of respondent No.2 for the purposes of this

petition is dispensed with.

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 against the

petitioner.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.

456/2012 registered at Police Station Beawar City,

District Ajmer for the offences under Section 498A and

406 Indian Penal Code 1860 and all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

(SABINA)J.

Mrg.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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