SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amjad Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 October, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3406/2018

Amjad Khan S/o Salar Mohammad, Aged About 38 Years, B/c
Musalman, R/o Takiya Colony, Near Masjid, Mavli, Udaipur.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Rijawana Begum D/o Mubark Khan, W/o Amjad Khan, B/c
Musalman, R/o Takiya Colony, Near Masjid, Mavli,
Udaipur, At Present 505, Khanji Pir, Udaipur.

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dashrath Singh

For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, PP

Mr. Bhawani Singh, for the
respondent No.2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

06/10/2018

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

been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the

proceedings pending him before the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial

court’) in Criminal Regular Case No.558/2016 (arising out of FIR

No.142/2016 of Police Station Mahila Thana, Udaipur) whereby,

the trial court vide order dated 24.7.2018 has attested the

compromise for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC but

refused to attest the same for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A IPC as the same is not compoundable.

(2 of 6) [CRLMP-3406/2018]

Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint under Section

156(3) of the Cr.P.C. lodged at the instance of respondent No.2,

the Police Station Mahila Thana, Distt. Udaipur has registered an

FIR No.142/2016 against the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC.

After investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against

the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and

498-A I.P.C. in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

No.2, Udaipur wherein, the trial is pending against the petitioner.

During the pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on

behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 while

stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and,

therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be

terminated.

The learned trial court vide order dated 24.7.2018 allowed

the parties to compound the offence under Section 406 I.P.C.,

however, rejected the application so far as it relates to

compounding the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. The present

criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for

quashing the said proceedings against him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the

complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already

entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has

been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 406

I.P.C., there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the

offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. It is also argued

that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial

against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section
(3 of 6) [CRLMP-3406/2018]

498-A 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 petitioner in relation to offence punishable under

Section 498-A 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
(4 of 6) [CRLMP-3406/2018]

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
(5 of 6) [CRLMP-3406/2018]

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
(6 of 6) [CRLMP-3406/2018]

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 petitioner and respondent no.2

have already entered into compromise, there is no possibility of

petitioner being convicted in the case pending against him. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner before the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur in Criminal

Regular Case No.558/2016 for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A IPC are hereby quashed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

ms rathore

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh