HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1214 / 2018
1. Dildar Khan Son of Shri Adam Khan

2. Adam Khan Son of Alla Bux

3. Smt Hannu Wife of Adam Khan, All by Caste Teli Muslim,
Residents of Village Bhatinda, Luni Police Station, District Jodhpur
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan

2. Smt. Babli Wife of Dildar Khan, By Caste Teli Muslim, Resident
of Village Bhatinda, Luni Police Station, District Jodhpur.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.S. Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Sikandar Khan
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
11/05/2018

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

been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the

criminal proceedings pending against them before the Sessions

Judge, Jodhpur, Distt. Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial

court’) in Criminal Appeal No.61/2016 wherein, the trial court vide

order dated 13.3.2018 has attested the compromise for the

offence punishable under Section 406 IPC but refused to attest the

compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and

323 IPC as the same are not compoundable.
(2 of 6)
[CRLMP-1214/2018]

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 has

lodged a complaint against the petitioners for the offences

punishable under Section 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC and after

completion of investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet

against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences in the court

concerned. The trial court vide judgment dated 7.9.2017 has

convicted and sentenced the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.

The petitioners being aggrieved with the judgment dated 7.9.2017

preferred an appeal which is pending consideration before the

appellate court.

During the pendency of the appeal, an application was

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 learned trial court vide order dated 13.3.2018 allowed

the parties to compound the offence under Section 406 IPC,

however, rejected the application so far as it relates to

compounding the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioners for quashing the said proceedings against them.

The 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

have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 406

IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. It is also
(3 of 6)
[CRLMP-1214/2018]

argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the

trial against the petitioners for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A and 323 IPC 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 petitioners in relation to offences punishable under

Sections 498-A and 323 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
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
(4 of 6)
[CRLMP-1214/2018]

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
(5 of 6)
[CRLMP-1214/2018]

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
(6 of 6)
[CRLMP-1214/2018]

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 petitioners and respondent no.2

have already entered into compromise, there is no possibility of

petitioners being convicted in the case pending against them.

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

Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, Distt. Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal

No.61/2016 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC

are hereby quashed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

Ms rathore