HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3358 / 2014
1. Atul Kumar Jain S/o Shri Mool Chand Modi, aged about
35 years.
2. Mool Chand Ji Jain S/o Shri Bach Raj Ji Modi, aged about
64 years.
3. Smt. Manorama Devi W/o Shri Mool Chand Ji Jain, aged
about 64 years.
All by cast Jain, R/o 42/57, Bepri Highi Road, 3A Block,
Third Floor, Satranjya Apartment, Chennai.

—-Petitioners/Accused
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through PP.
2. Sunaina Modi W/o Shri Atul Kumar Jain, D/o Shri
Rajendra Kumar Kothari, R/o B-158, Hari Marg, Malviya
Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

—-Respondents

__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Surana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan
Public Prosecutor : Mr. NS Dhakad
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Order
20/04/2017

Learned Counsel for petitioners Mr. Rajeev Surana

submits that petitioner no. 1 is husband, 2 is father-in-law

and 3 is mother-in-law of respondent no. 2/complainant, the

dispute between them is matrimonial in nature, charge sheet

was filed under Section 498A and 406 IPC against the present

petitioners, parties have settled their dispute amicably,
(2 of 6)
[CRLMP-3358/2014]

compromise has already been submitted before the Trial

Court which has been verified vide order dated 25.03.2017

and on the basis of compromise petitioners have already

been acquitted for offence under Section 406 IPC as this

offence is compoundable, since offence under Section 498A is

not compoundable, therefore Learned Trial Court refused to

attest the compromise for this offence. He submits that after

compromise no fruitful purpose will be served continuing the

criminal proceedings for offence under Section 498A,

therefore the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.

246/2015 pending before Learned Metropolitan Magistrate

No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan (FIR No. 70/2014, Police Station

Mahila Thana, Jaipur (East)) be quashed and set aside.

Mr. Deepak Chauhan Learned Counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent no. 2/complainant also supported the

aforesaid submissions.

Learned PP Mr. NS Dhakad also submits that if

parties have settled their dispute amicably then the

proceedings of criminal case may be quashed.

I have considered the submissions made at bar.

Vide order dated 09.03.2017, parties were directed

to appear before the Trial Court and submit their compromise

before Trial Court and Learned Trial Court was directed to

verify the compromise so submitted and after recording

statement of victim, the compromise so submitted and
(3 of 6)
[CRLMP-3358/2014]

verified and statement of victim was sent to this Court which

has been received by this Court. Since parties have settled

their dispute and the compromise has already been submitted

before the Trial Court which has been verified and attested for

offence under Section 406 IPC, Respondent no.

2/complainant in her statement also submitted that dispute

has already been settled amicably and she doesn’t wants to

pursue the matter.

In the matter of Gyan Singh Vs State of Punjab

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 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

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
(4 of 6)
[CRLMP-3358/2014]

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
(5 of 6)
[CRLMP-3358/2014]

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
(6 of 6)
[CRLMP-3358/2014]

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.”

Here in the case in hand, also the dispute is

matrimonial in nature which is private one which was been

settled by the parties, therefore in view of aforesaid

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court while exercising powers

vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this petition is

allowed and criminal proceedings pending against the present

petitioners being Criminal Case No. 246/2015 pending before

Learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan

(FIR No. 70/2014, Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur (East))

is quashed and set aside.

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA)J.

Charu 106