SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dinesh Kumar vs State on 16 August, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2526/2018

1. Dinesh Kumar S/o Prema Ram , Aged About 29 Years,
(Husband) R/o Village Mandal, Dist. Pali,

2. Prema Ram S/o Varda Ji, Aged About 52 Years, (Father In
Law) R/o Vill. Mandal, Dist. Pali

3. Hastu Devi, W/o Prema Ram, Aged About 48 Years,
(Father In Law) R/o Vill. Mandal, Dist. Pali

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. Rekha W/o Dinesh Kumar D/o Dharma Ram, R/o Mandal
At Present Koselaw, Teh. Sumerpur, Dist. Pali

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj, P.P.

Mr. J.V.S. Deora, for respondent No.2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Order

16/08/2018

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 learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, District Pali (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Original Case No.

2807/2014 (arising out of FIR No.178/2011 – Police Station

Takhatgrah, District Pali), whereby the trial court vide order dated

13.07.2018 has attested the compromise for the offences

punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC but refused to attest
(2 of 6) [CRLMP-2526/2018]

the same 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 Police Station Takhatgrah,

District Pali has registered an FIR No.178/2011 against the

petitioners. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet

against the petitioners for offence under Sections 498-A, 406 and

323 IPC in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Sumerpur, District Pali wherein the trial is pending against the

petitioners. During the pendency of the trial, 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

petitioner may be terminated. The learned trial court vide order

dated 13.07.2018 allowed the parties to compound the offences

under Sections 406 and 323 I.P.C., however, rejected the

application so far as it relates to compounding the offence under

Section 498A I.P.C.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioner 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 petitioner has

been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and

323 I.P.C., there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for

the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. It is submitted

that as the petitioners have already entered into compromise, no
(3 of 6) [CRLMP-2526/2018]

useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the

petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C.

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 offence punishable under

Section 498A I.P.C.

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 criminal
proceeding or complaint or F.I.R
may be exercised where the
offender and victim have settled
their dispute would depend on the
(4 of 6) [CRLMP-2526/2018]

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
(5 of 6) [CRLMP-2526/2018]

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.”

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case

and looking to the fact that the petitioners 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
(6 of 6) [CRLMP-2526/2018]

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

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sumerur, District Pali

in Criminal Regular Case No.2807/2014 for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A IPC are hereby quashed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Taruna

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh