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)