HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1321 / 2018
1. Amit Vyas S/o Bajrang Lal

2. Bajrang Lal S/o Vallabha Vyas

3. Sarla Kanta Vyas W/o Bajrang Vyas, All B/c Brahmin, R/o C 195
Murlidhar Vyas Colony P.S. Nyashahar, District Bikaner.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan

2. Vidhi Vyas W/o Amit Vyas, D/o Vijay Shankar, R/o Murlidhar
Vyas Colony , District Bikaner. Presently At J-37, Krishana Marg,
District Jaipur.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.N. Bishnoi
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Uma Shankar Acharya
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
26/04/2018

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

been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the

proceedings pending against them before the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.3, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial

court’) in Criminal Regular Case No.143/2013 (arising out of FIR

No.171/2011 of Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bikaner).

The trial court vide order dated 11.04.2018 has attested the

compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 406/34

323/34 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A IPC as the same is not
(2 of 5)
[CRLMP-1321/2018]

compoundable.

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

instance of respondent No.2, the Police Station Mahila Thana,

District Bikaner registered an FIR No.171/2011 against the

petitioners. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet

against the petitioners for offences under Sections 406/34, 323/34

and 498-A I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bikaner

wherein the trial is pending.

During the pendency of the trial, an application was

preferred on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent

No.2 while stating that both the parties have entered into

compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the

petitioners may be terminated.

The learned trial court vide order dated 11.04.2018 allowed

the parties to compound the offences under Sections 406/34 and

323/34 I.P.C., however, rejected the application so far as it relates

to compound the offence under Section 498A I.P.C.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioners for quashing the said proceedings against them.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as

the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioners have

already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the

petitioners have been acquitted for the offences punishable under

Sections 406/34 and 323/34 I.P.C., there is no possibility of their

conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. It

is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by
(3 of 5)
[CRLMP-1321/2018]

continuing the trial against the petitioners for the offence

punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. because the same may

derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted

that the parties have already entered into compromise and the

respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled

against the petitioners in relation to the offence punishable under

Section 498A I.P.C.

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.
(4 of 5)
[CRLMP-1321/2018]

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 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
(5 of 5)
[CRLMP-1321/2018]

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 petitioners and respondent no.2

have entered into compromise, there is no possibility of

petitioners being convicted in the case pending against them.

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 petitioners 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 petitioners before the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bikaner in Criminal Regular Case

No.143/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC

are hereby quashed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

Taruna