SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jitendra Parihar vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 August, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2572/2018

Jitendra Parihar S/o Sh. Magaram, Aged About 24 Years, B/c
Seervi, R/o Bera Nimbadi, Pipaliya Kallan, Police Station Raipur,
District Pali, Presently Residing At 29/25, Road No.5, S.S.R.
Nagar, Almash Guda, Badanpeth, Police Station Meereth, District
Rangareddy (Telangana)

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan

2. Smt. Vidhya D/o Sh. Bhanwarlal, B/c Senca Seervi, R/o
House No.763-B, Bapu Nagar Extension, Pali (Raj)

—-Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Pravin Vyas
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. M.S. Panwar, Public Prosecutor
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Bharat Shrimali

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

23/08/2018

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 Judicial Magistrate

No.1, Pali (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in

Criminal Regular Case No.1563/2018 (arising out of FIR

No.2/2018 of Women Police Station, District Pali), whereby the

trial court vide order dated 07.05.2018 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.

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-2572/2018]

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

instance of respondent No.2, the FIR No.2/2018 was registered at

Women Police Station, District Pali against the petitioner. After

investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner

for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A 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 trial court vide order dated

07.05.2018 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

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. It is also contended by

learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have decided to

live separately by mutual consent and in this regard an application

under Section 13 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 petitioner for the offence
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-2572/2018]

punishable under Section 498-A 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

decided to live separately by mutual consent and the respondent

No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the

petitioner 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
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
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-2572/2018]

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
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 and respondent No.2

have decided to live separately and in pursuance of that

appropriate application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-2572/2018]

Act for dissolution of marriage has already been moved, there is

no possibility of accused-petitioner being convicted in the case

pending against him. When once the matrimonial dispute has 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 petitioner 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

Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pali in Criminal Regular Case

No.1563/2018 (arising out of FIR No.2/2018 of Women Police

Station, District Pali) are hereby quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.29

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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