SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kapil Thanvi vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 August, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2544/2018

1. Kapil Thanvi S/o Devkishan Thanvi, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Mochiyo Ki Gali, Inside Siwanchi Gate,
Jodhpur/Hanuman Chowk, Ummedpura, Phalodi, District
Jodhpur.

2. Devkishan Thanvi S/o Late Mool Chand Thanvi, Aged
About 59 Years, R/o Mochiyo Ki Gali, Inside Siwanchi
Gate, Jodhpur/Hanuman Chowk, Ummedpura, Phalodi,
District Jodhpur.

3. Smt. Basani Thanvi W/o Devkishan Thanvi, Aged About
50 Years, R/o Mochiyo Ki Gali, Inside Siwanchi Gate,
Jodhpur/Hanuman Chowk, Ummedpura, Phalodi, District
Jodhpur

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan

2. Smt. Archana W/o Kapil Thanvi, D/o Sh. Ashok Purohit,
R/o 25-F-28, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur

—-Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Avinash Bhati
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. J.K. Chanda

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

20/08/2018

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 Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter to

be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No.527/2016

(State Vs. Kapil Thanvi Ors.), whereby the trial court vide order
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-2544/2018]

dated 20.07.2018 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.

In the instant case the respondent No.2 filed a complaint in

the trial court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same was

forwarded to the Women Police Station (West), District Jodhpur,

whereof the FIR No.13/2014 was registered against the

petitioners. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet

against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections

406 and 498-A IPC in the trial court wherein the trial is pending

against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. 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 petitioners may be terminated.

The trial court vide order dated 20.07.2018 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

petitioners for quashing the said proceedings against them.

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

offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. It is also contended
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-2544/2018]

by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 and

the respondent No.2 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 petitioners 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 respondent No.2 has admitted that

the parties have already entered into compromise and the

petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 have decided to live

separately and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the

charges levelled against the petitioners in relation to 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 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
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-2544/2018]

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
in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-2544/2018]

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case

and looking to the fact that the petitioners and respondent No.2

have entered into compromise and the petitioner No.1 and the

respondent No.2 have decided to live separately by mutual

consent, there is no possibility of accused-petitioners being

convicted in the case pending against them. 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 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

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.1, Jodhpur

Metropolitan in Criminal Case No.527/2016 (State Vs. Kapil Thanvi

Ors.) are hereby quashed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.26

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