Imamuddin Qureshi vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 2 May, 2017

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

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2207/2017

Imamuddin Qureshi S/o Shri Saleem @ Salmu, aged about 29
years, by caste Musalman, R/o House No. 6333. Shankar
Gurjar Ki Gali, Chadi Ki Taksal, Jaipur.

…Accused/Petitioner
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through P.P.

…Non-Petitioner

2. Smt. Afsana Dharam w/o Imamuddin S/o Shri Abdul
Salam, aged about 24 years, R/o House No. B-9, Krishna
Colony, Behind Sangam Battery, Near Beniwal
Dharamkanta, Jaipur, at present R/o 633, Shankar
Gurjar Ki Gali, Chandi Ki Taksal, Subhash Chowk, Jaipur.

…Complainant/Respondent.

DATE OF ORDER ::: 2nd May, 2017

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

Mr. Laxmikant Sharma for the Petitioner.
Mr. Nawal Kishore for the Respondent.

Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, PP.

Learned counsel for petitioner/accused Shri Laxmikant

Sharma submits that petitioner accused and respondent No. 2

complainant are husband and wife and the dispute between them is

matrimonial in nature which has been settled amicably. Compromise

has already been submitted before the Trial Court on 15 th April, 2017

and same has been verified and attested for offence under Section

406 IPC. On the basis of compromise, petitioner has already been

acquitted 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 this offence. He further
2
submits that after compromise no fruitful purpose will be served

continuing the criminal proceedings for offence under Section 498A

IPC and will be abused of the process of the Court, therefore, the

entire proceedings of Criminal Regular Case NO. 227/2016 (State Vs.

Imamuddin Qureshi) pending before learned Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate No. 16, Jaipur Metropolitan for offence under

Section 498A IPC may be quashed and set aside.

Shri Nawal Kishore learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No. 2 complainant supported the aforesaid submissions.

Learned PP. Shri Jitendra Shrimali also supported the

aforesaid submissions.

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
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
3
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
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.”

Here in the case in hand, the dispute between parties is

matrimonial in nature which is private one and the same has been

settled amicably, therefore, in view of aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble
4
Supreme Court while exercising powers vested in this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., this petition is allowed and proceeings of

Criminal Case No. 227/2016 pending before learned Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate No. 16, Jaipur Metropolitanfor offence under

Section 498A IPC against the petitioner accused is quashed and set

aside on the basis of compromise .

[BANWARI LAL SHARMA], J.

Komal/107.

Leave a Comment

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