HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1851 / 2017
Bhupendra S/o Shri Ramkishan B/c Gurjar, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Behind Police Station Bawal Distt. Rewari
(Haryana).
—-Petitioner/Accused
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through PP
2. Smt. Sheela W/o Shri Bhupendra D/o Shri Bijendra B/c
Gurjar, R/o Behind Police Station Bawal Distt. Rewari
(Haryana) Presently R/o Village Meerka Police Station
Kishangarhbas Distt. Alwar.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. MK Saini on behalf of Mr. Harendra Singh
Sinsinwar
Public Prosecutor : Mr. Jitendra Shrimali
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Order
18/05/2017
Learned Counsel for petitioner/accused Mr. MK Saini
submits that petitioner is husband of respondent no.
2/complainant, the dispute between them is matrimonial in
nature which is private one and they have settled their
dispute amicably, compromise has already been submitted
before the Trial Court on 06.01.2017. Learned Trial Court
verified and attested the same and on the basis of
compromise petitioner has already been acquitted for offence
under Section 406 IPC as this offence is compoundable, since
(2 of 5)
[CRLMP-1851/2017]
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. 493/2012 pending before Learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, District
Alwar be quashed and set aside.
Learned PP Mr. Jitendra Shrimali also didn’t object
in allowing this Misc. Petition.
I have considered the submissions made at bar.
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
(3 of 5)
[CRLMP-1851/2017]
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 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
(4 of 5)
[CRLMP-1851/2017]
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
(5 of 5)
[CRLMP-1851/2017]
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, 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, now after
compromise continuing criminal proceedings for offence
under Section 498A IPC is abuse of process of Court,
therefore in view of Gyan Singh’s judgment (supra), this
Misc. petition is allowed and criminal proceedings pending
against the present petitioner being Criminal Case No.
493/2012 pending before Learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar is quashed and set
aside on the basis of compromise.
Accordingly, the Misc. Petition is allowed.
(BANWARI LAL SHARMA)J.
Charu 50