SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Deepak Sharma & Ors vs State & Anr on 1 May, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1224 / 2018
1. Deepak Sharma Son of Ramkishan Sharma, Aged About 40
Years

2. Ramkishan Sharma Son of Mahadev Prasad, Aged About 68
Years

3. Saroj Sharma Wife of Ramkishan Sharma, Aged About 64
Years, All by Caste Suthar, Resident of 18-C, West Vihar,
Ajmer Road, Bhakrota, Jaipur West (Raj.)

—-Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Shipra @ Bhavika Sharma Wife of Deepak Sharma D/o Shri
Shyamlal Sharma, By Caste Suthar, Resident of D-11,
Mahaveer Nagar, Near Kamala Nehru Hospital, Jodhpur (Raj.)

—-Respondents

__
For Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Khayani
Mr. Vivek Chouhan
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. M.S. Panwar, Public Prosecutor
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Mohd. Sajid
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
01/05/2018

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 Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan
(2 of 6)
[CRLMP-1224/2018]

(hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case

No.22/2018 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Deepak Sharma Ors.)

arising out of FIR No.104/2017 of Police Station Mahila Thana

West, District Jodhpur, whereby the trial court vide order dated

17.03.2018 has attested the compromise for the offence

punishable under Section 406 IPC but refused to attest the

compromise for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC

as the same is not compoundable.

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

instance of respondent No.2, the FIR No.104/2017 was lodged at

Police Station Mahila Thana West, District Pali against the

petitioners. After investigation, the police filed challan against the

petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and

498-A IPC in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the

petitioners for the aforesaid offences. During the pendency of the

trial, two applications were 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 trial court

vide order dated 17.03.2018 allowed the parties to compound the

offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, however, rejected the

application so far as it relates to compounding the offence

punishable under Section 498-A IPC.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioners for quashing the said proceedings against them.
(3 of 6)
[CRLMP-1224/2018]

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 has

been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC,

there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the

offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. It is also contended

by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 and

the respondent No.2 have decided to live separately by mutual

consent and in this regard an application under Section 13-B of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is already filed. It is also argued

that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial

against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section

498-A IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived

at between the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that

the parties have already entered into compromise and the

petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 have decided to live

separately and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the

charges levelled against the petitioners in relation to offence

punishable under Section 498-A IPC.

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
(4 of 6)
[CRLMP-1224/2018]

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 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
(5 of 6)
[CRLMP-1224/2018]

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.”

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case

and looking to the fact that the petitioner NO.1 and respondent

No.2 have decided to live separately and in pursuance of that an

application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act has also

filed, there is no possibility of accused-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

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases), Jodhpur
(6 of 6)
[CRLMP-1224/2018]

Metropolitan in Criminal Case No.22/2018 (State of Rajasthan Vs.

Deepak Sharma Ors.) arising out of FIR No.104/2017 of Police

Station Mahila Thana West, District Jodhpur are hereby quashed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

Abhishek Kumar
S.No.39

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation