Shailendra Kumar Kaushik vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 11 April, 2017

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

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1290/2017

Shailendra Kumar Kaushik s/o Late Shri Banwari Lal
Kaushik, aged about 47 years, by caste Brahmin, R/o Plot
No. 16, Sidharth Colony, Sodala, Tehsil District Jaipur
(Raj.).

..Accused-Petitioner.
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.

2. Smt. Anjulata @ Tanu w/o Shri Shailendra Kumar
Kaushik, D/o Shri Shiv Nandan Aged about 45 years,
R/o Village Bhajheet, P.S. M.I.A., Tehsil District
Alwar (Raj.)

…Complainant-Respondent.

DATE OF ORDER ::: 11th April, 2017

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

Mr. Mahendra Kumar for the Petitioner.

Ms. Asha Sharma for the Complainant.

Mr. Aladeen Khan, PP.

Shri Mahendra Kumar learned counsel appearing on

behalf of Shri Mohd. Iqbal Khan learned counsel for the

petitioner submits petitioner is husband of respondent No. 2

complainant and the dispute between them is matrimonial in

nature which has been settled amicably. Compromise has

already been submitted before the Trial Court which has been

verified and attested for offence under Section 406 IPC. He

submits that offence under Section 498A is not compoundable,

therefore, learned Trial Court refused to attest the compromise

for offence under Section 498A IPC. He submits that the alleged
2
offence is matrimonial in nature which is private one, therefore,

after compromise no fruitful purpose will be served continuing

the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner accused.

In view of it, the proceedings of criminal case No. 387/2012

(State Vs. Shailendra Kumar Kaushik) pending before the

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Alwar may be

READ  Shalu Raghav vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 30 May, 2017

quashed while exercising powers vested in this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. He submits that respondent No. 2

complainant is also present before this Court along with her

counsel.

Ms. Asha Sharma learned counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent No. 2 complainant supported the aforesaid

submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner accused

and submits that respondent No. 2 complainant Smt. Anjulata @

Tanu is also present before this Court to whom she identifies.

Learned PP. Shri Aladeen Khan also supported the

submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

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
3
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
4
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.”

READ  State (Nct) Of Delhi vs Monil Yadav on 30 May, 2017

In the case in hand alson since petitioner and respondent
No. 2 complainant are husband and wife and the dispute
between them is private and matrimonial in nature which they
have settled amicably. Compromise has already been submitted
before the Trial Court and the same has been verified. On the
basis of compromise petitioner accused has been acquitted for
offence under Section 406 IPC, therefore, continuing criminal
proceedings under Section 498A IPC is abuse to process of
Court.

In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court
Pronouncement, this misc. Petition deserves to be accepted
which is hereby allowed and proceedings of criminal case no.
387/2012 (State Vs. Shailendra Kumar Kaushik) pending before
learned Additional Chiefe Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Alwar is
quashed and set aside..

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA)J.

Komal 127

Leave a Comment

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