Rohitpunga vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 January, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 6768 / 2017
Rohit Punga S/o Shri Ranveer Punga, Aged About 35 Years, R/o J-
12/62, Rajouri Garden New Delhi
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

2. Ms Kiran Keswani W/o Rohit Punga, D/o Shri Kishan Chand
Keswani, R/o 8027-B, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Police Station
Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.
—-Respondents

__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Kohli.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Godara, PP
Mr. Vinod Vaishnav – for respondent No.2.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Order
17/01/2018

Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as also

learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 and learned

Public Prosecutor.

Accused-petitioner Rohit Punga and complainant-respondent

No.2 Ms. Kiran Keswani are present in person, who are identified

by their respective counsels.

Both the counsels as well as petitioner and respondent No.2

admit the fact that in compliance of the settlement arrived at on

07.11.2016 between the parties before the Supreme Court

Mediation Centre, the payment of Rs.5.00 lakh is being made by

the accused-petitioner through FDR A/c No.37359099281
(2 of 4)
[CRLMP-6768/2017]

prepared in the name of Mr. Yuvraj Punga and the same is being

handed over today to the respondent No.2 in compliance of the

settled terms.

Learned counsel for both the sides submit that the

compromise has been produced before the trial court for the

offence under Section 406 IPC, which has been attested on

05.10.2017 and accused-petitioner Rohit Punga has been

acquitted for the offence under Section 406 IPC. Now the

proceedings for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is continuing

against the accused-petitioner.

Both the sides admit that a decree of divorce has been

granted on the basis of mutual consent and no dispute exists

between the parties, therefore, the continuation of proceedings for

the offence under Section 498-A IPC shall be of no use, it will only

tantamount to abuse of process of law and the same will be cause

of disharmony between the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

proceedings for the offence under Section 498-A IPC may kindly

be quashed.

Complainant respondent No.2 Ms. Kiran Keswani expressions

her no objection to this proposal.

In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs. State

of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No.1723/2017 – decided on

04.10.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :-

“Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the
offender in relation to the offences under special statutes
like the
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
(3 of 4)
[CRLMP-6768/2017]

proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour
stand on a 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, the High Court may
quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that
the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the
above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall
be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.”

Having considered the fact that the matrimonial dispute has

been amicably settled, there is no reason to allow the continuance

of the proceedings for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. This

will only be an abuse of process of law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this

Court that in compliance of the order dated 13.02.2015 passed in

S.B.Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.14615/2014, an amount

of Rs.4.00 lakh was deposited by the petitioner and the FDR who

was kept as guarantee in the trial court. He submits that since the

matter has been settled between the parties, the said amount

alongwith interest accrued thereon may be ordered to be refunded

back to the petitioner.

Complainant-respondent No.2 and counsel appearing on her

behalf has no objection to it.

(4 of 4)
[CRLMP-6768/2017]

Accordingly, it is ordered that the amount of FDR alongwith

interest accrued thereon may be refunded to the petitioner by the

trial court.

In view of above, the misc. petition is allowed and the

proceedings in Criminal Case No.241/2015 pending before the

Court of Additional Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate No.15,

Jaipur Metropolitan is quashed and set-aside.

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI) J.

Rm/55

Leave a Comment

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