HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 214/2020

Gaurav Bhansali S/o Sh. Jagdish Bhansali, Aged About 36 Years,
B/c Oswal, Address- R/o Behind Nanak Store, 1St B Road,
Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State, Through Pp

2. Ranu Bhansali D/o Sh. Narendra Chand Singhvi, B/c
Oswal, R/o Flat No. 204 Happy Home 4Th C Road
Sardarpura Jodhpur (Raj.).

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.

Mr. Swaroop Ram Bamaniya, for
respondent No.2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

15/01/2020

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

been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the

proceedings pending against him before the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate No.7, Jodhpur Metropolitan (PCPNDT Act Cases,

Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’), State vs.

Gaurav Bhansali in Criminal Regular Case No.630/2016 (arising

out of FIR No.54/2016 Police Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur),

wherein the trial court vide order dated 24.10.2019 has attested

the compromise for the offences 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.

(Downloaded on 15/01/2020 at 08:52:13 PM)

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-214/2020]

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

instance of respondent No.2, the Police Station Mahila Thana,

Jodhpur has registered an FIR No.54/2016 against the petitioner.

After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the

petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406

and 354 of IPC in the trial court, wherein the trial is pending

against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. During the

pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the

petitioner 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 24.10.2019 allowed the

parties to compound the offence under Section 406 IPC, however,

rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the

offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the

complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already

entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has

been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC,

there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the 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

(Downloaded on 15/01/2020 at 08:52:13 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-214/2020]

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
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

(Downloaded on 15/01/2020 at 08:52:13 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-214/2020]

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
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

(Downloaded on 15/01/2020 at 08:52:13 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-214/2020]

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.”

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 petitioner before the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.7, Jodhpur Metropolitan

(PCPNDT Act Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Regular Case

No.630/2016 (State vs. Gaurav Bhansali) are hereby quashed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

123-Taruna/-

(Downloaded on 15/01/2020 at 08:52:13 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)