HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1038 / 2017
Dhanraj Son of Shri Makkhan Lal, by Caste Jogi, R/o Janta
Colony, Opposite Teg Bahadur School, Paharganj, District
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner/Accused
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
—-Respondent

2. Jyoti Nath D/o Shri Mahendra Nath Wife of Shri Dhanraj,
R/o Janta Colony, Opposite Teg Bahadur School, Paharganj,
District Ajmer, Presently R/o 365/38, Arjun Lal Sethi
Nagar, Parbatpura Bypass Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

—-Respondent/Complainant
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohammed Anees
Public Prosecutor : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore
_____________________________________________________
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Order
01/03/2017

Learned Counsel for petitioner Mr. Jai Kishan

Yogi submits that petitioner/accused and respondent no.

2/complainant are husband and wife. Due to some mis-

understanding and matrimonial dispute respondent no.

2/complainant lodged impugned FIR No. 242/2014 for

offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC

wherein after investigation police submitted charge sheet

against the present petitioner for offences punishable
(2 of 7)
[CRLMP-1038/2017]

under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. He submits that

aforesaid Criminal Case being 21/2015 is pending before

Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (P.C.P.N.D.T

Act Cases), Ajmer. Now parties have settled their dispute

amicably and compromise has already been submitted

before the Trial Court which was verified and attested by

the Learned Trial Court for offence under Section 406 IPC

and on the basis of the compromise petitioner has

already been acquitted for offence under Section 406 IPC

but Learned Trial Court rejected the application seeking

permission for compromise for offence under Section

498-A IPC being non-compoundable. He further submits

that since petitioner and respondent no. 2/complainant

are living together, therefore continuing criminal case

may disturb their matrimonial life, therefore in the

interest of justice this Misc. Petition may be allowed and

proceedings for offence under Section 498- A IPC

pending against the present petitioner may be quashed

and set aside. He further submits that petitioner and

respondent no. 2/complainant are present in person

before this Court today.

Learned PP Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore didn’t

object in allowing this Revision Petition.

(3 of 7)
[CRLMP-1038/2017]

Mr. Mohammed Anees Learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2/complainant also

supported the submissions made by Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi

and submitted that respondent no. 2/complainant is

present before this Court and she has no objection in

allowing this 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 viz; (i) to secure

the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse
(4 of 7)
[CRLMP-1038/2017]

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
(5 of 7)
[CRLMP-1038/2017]

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
(6 of 7)
[CRLMP-1038/2017]

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.”

Since parties have already submitted their

compromise before the Trial Court which has already

been verified and attested and on the basis of

compromise petitioner has already been acquitted for

offence under Section 406 IPC. Now in view of the

aforesaid Supreme Court judgment no purpose will be

served continuing the criminal proceedings for offence

under Section 498-A IPC after compromise between the

parties, therefore this Misc. Petition is allowed and the

Criminal Regular Case No. 21/2015 pending before

Learned Additonal Chief Judicial Magistrate (P.C.P. N.D.T

Act Cases), Ajmer arised out of FIR No. 242/2014
(7 of 7)
[CRLMP-1038/2017]

registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Ajmer for

offence under Section 498-A IPC pending against the

present petitioner and other consequential proceedings is

quashed and set aside.

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA)J.

Charu 90