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

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2582/2017

Bharat Kumar Tilhani S/o. Shri Hemant Tilhani, R/o. B-10,
Shivsheesh Flats, In front of Nilkanth Mahadev Mandir, Ballabh
Park, D-Cabin, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.

….Accused/Petitioner
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through P.P.

……Respondent

2. Smt. Hina Tilhani W/o. Bharat Tilhani D/o. Late Shri
Laxmandas, at present R/o. House No. 3, Near Gupta
Garden, Govind Nagar (West), Amer Road, Jaipur.

…Complainant-Respondent.

DATE OF ORDER ::: 19th May, 2017

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

Mr. Kapil Gupta for the Petitioner.

Dr. Bharati Sharma for the Respondent.

Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, PP.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

accused and respondent No. 2 are husband and wife and dispute

between them is matrimonial in nature which has been settled

amicably. Compromise has already been submitted before the Trial

Court i.e. learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 18,

Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on 24.04.2017 which has been verified by

the Trial Court and has already been attested for offence under

Section 406 IPC being compoundable one and on the basis of

compromise, learned Trial Court acquitted the present petitioner for

offence under Section 406 IPC but offence under Section 498A IPC is

not compoundable, therefore, learned Trial Court refused to attest
2
the compromise for this offence. He submits that after compromise

continuing the criminal proceedings of criminal case is abuse of

process of Court, therefore, while exercising inherent powers vested

in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the entire proceeding of

Criminal Case No. 1130/2015 pending before learned Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate No. 18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur may be

quashed and set aside.

Dr. Bharati Sharma learned counsel appearing on behalf

of respondent No. 2 complainant supported the aforesaid submissions

and submits that since dispute has already been resolved, therefore,

the entire proceedings of Criminal Case may be quashed. She

submits that respondent No. 2 complainant Ms. Hina Tilhani is

present in person to whom she identifies.

Learned PP. Shri Jitendra Shrimali also supported the

aforesaid submissions.

In the matter of Gian 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
3
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
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.”
4

Here in case in hand the dispute between parties is

matrimonial in nature which is private one. The same has been

settled amicably. Compromise has already been submitted

before the Trial Court which has been verified and attested for

offence under Section 406 IPC on the basis of compromise.

Petitioner accused has already been acquitted for offence under

Section 406 IPC. Now offence under Section 498A IPC remains.

After compromise continuing criminal proceedings of this

offence will be abused of process of Court, therefore, in the light

of observation made in Gyan Singh Vs. Stat of Punjab (Supra)

judgment this misc. petition is allowed and the entire criminal

proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1130/2015 (State Vs. Bharat

Tilhani) under Section 498A pending before learned Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur

is quashed and set aside.

[BANWARI LAL SHARMA], J.

Komal/100.