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