SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jitendra Tanwar @ Ashok & Ors vs State on 21 March, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 603 / 2018
1. Jitendra Tanwar @ Ashok S/o Shri Jairam
2. Smt Santosh W/o Shri Jai Ram
3. Jai Ram,
All by Caste Mali, R/o Plot No. 66, Front of Brothers Gym,
Shobhawato Ki Dhani, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Smt. Bhawana W/o Shri Jitendra Tanwar @ Ashok D/o Shri
Ishwar Anand Ji, By Caste Mali, R/o 8/206 CHB Jodhpur
Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioners : Mr. V.D. Vaishnav
For Respondent : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj, Public Prosecutor
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
21/03/2018

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

has been preferred by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 as well as

complainant-petitioner No.4 with the prayer for quashing the

proceedings pending against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 before the

Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases),

Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in

Case No.378/2016 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Jitendra Tanwar

Ors.), whereby the trial court vide order dated 21.08.2017 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-603/2018]

Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint filed on behalf

of the complainant-petitioner No.4, the proceedings under

Sections 406 and 498-A IPC are pending against the petitioner

Nos.1 to 3 in the trial court. During the pendency of trial, the

compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner Nos.1 to 3

and complainant-petitioner No.4 in the spirit of National Lok

Adalat on 08.04.2017 and pursuant to that an application was

preferred on behalf of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 as well as the

complainant-petitioner No.4 while stating that both the parties

have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings

pending against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 may be terminated. The

trial court vide order dated 21.08.2016 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 joint criminal misc. petition has been preferred

by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and the complainant-petitioner No.4

for quashing the said proceedings against the petitioner Nos.1 to

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the

complainant-petitioner No.4 and the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 have

already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the

petitioner Nos.1 to 3 have been acquitted for the offence

punishable under Section 406 IPC, there is no possibility of

conviction of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A IPC. It is also contended by learned counsel

for the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4
(3 of 5)
[CRLMP-603/2018]

have decided to live separately by mutual consent. It is also

argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the

trial against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A IPC because the same may derail the

compromise arrived at between the parties.

Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner No.4 has

admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise

and the petitioner No.1 and complainant-petitioner No.4 have

decided to live separately and the complainant-petitioner No.4

does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner

Nos.1 to 3 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
(4 of 5)
[CRLMP-603/2018]

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 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
(5 of 5)
[CRLMP-603/2018]

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 No.1 and complainant-

petitioner No.4 have decided to live separately, there is no

possibility of accused-petitioner Nos.1 to 3 being convicted in the

case pending against them. When once the matrimonial disputes

have 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 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 Nos.1 to 3

before the Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act

Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan in Case No.378/2016 (State of

Rajasthan Vs. Jitendra Tanwar Ors.) are hereby quashed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

Abhishek Kumar
S.No.46

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