HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1092 / 2018
Abhishek Jain (hathi) S/o Shri Parasmal Hathi (jain), R/o-203,
Second Floor Mahada High Tower H-1 A Building, Mangathane
Village Borivali (East), Mumbai.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Sarika Jain W/o Shri Abhishek Hathi (jain), R/o-1156,
Hiranmagri, Sector No.-4, Udaipur.
2. State of Rajasthan
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Manish Tak
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
11/04/2018

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the

proceedings pending against him before the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

trial court’) in Criminal Revision Petition No.544/2014 (Abhishek

Vs. Urmila), whereby the trial court vide order dated 27.02.2015

has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under

Section 406 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the

offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC as the same is not

compoundable.

Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the

instance of respondent No.1, the FIR No.102/2014 was lodged at
(2 of 5)
[CRLMP-1092/2018]

Women Police Station, District Pali against the petitioner. After

investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner for

offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC in the trial

court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner for the

aforesaid offence. During the pendency of the trial, an application

was preferred on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent

No.1 while stating that both the parties have entered into

compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the

petitioner may be terminated. The trial court vide order dated

27.02.2018 allowed the parties to compound the offence

punishable under Section 406 IPC, however, rejected the

application so far as it relates to compounding the offence

punishable under Section 498-A IPC.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the

complainant-respondent No.1 and the petitioner have already

entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has

been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC,

there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A IPC. It is also contended by

learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have decided to

live separately by mutual consent and in this regard a joint

application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

has already been filed by both of them and a decree of divorce has

been passed by the Family Court, Udaipur vide judgment dated

27.02.2018. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be
(3 of 5)
[CRLMP-1092/2018]

served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A IPC because the same may derail

the compromise arrived at between the parties.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has admitted

that the parties have already entered into compromise and

decided to live separately and the respondent No.1 does not want

to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to

offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.

The Hon’ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the

case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab Anr. reported in JT

2012(9) SC – 426 has held as below:-

“57. 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
(4 of 5)
[CRLMP-1092/2018]

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.”

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case

and looking to the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.1
(5 of 5)
[CRLMP-1092/2018]

have decided to live separately and in pursuance of that a decree

of divorce has already been passed by the Family Court, Udaipur,

there is no possibility of accused-petitioner being convicted in the

case pending against him. When once the matrimonial disputes

have been settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful

purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings

pending.

Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Gian Singh’s case (supra), this Court is of the

opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings

pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the

criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur in Criminal

Revision Petition No.544/2014 (Abhishek Vs. Urmila) are hereby

quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

Abhishek Kumar
S.No.39