IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1962/2017
Konark Vyashya S/o Shri Vinod Chand Gupta, R/o C/o Ankush
Vijay, 18/A, Vinayak Colony, Kayar Road, Ghooghara, Ajmer
1. State of Rajasthan through P.P.
2. Smt. Vratika D/o Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, By Caste
Mahajan, r/o House No. B-127, Goal Market, Sector-2,
Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
DATE OF ORDER ::: 19th April, 2017
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Mr. Peush Nag for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ram Prakash Kumawat for the Respondent.
Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, PP.
Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Peush Nag submits
that the relation between petitioner accused and respondent No. 2
complainant is husband and wife and the dispute between them is
matrimonial in nature which has been settled amicably. Compromise
has already been submitted before the Trial Court which has been
verified and petitioner accused has already been acquitted for offence
under Section 406 IPC on the basis of compromise.
Since offence under Section 498A IPC is not
compoundable, therefore, learned Trial Court refused to attest the
compromise for offence under Section 498A IPC. He submits that
petitioner and respondent No. 2 both are present before this Court
and after compromise continuing criminal proceedings for offence
under Section 498A is abused of process of law. The entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 239/2015 pending before learned
Metropolitan Magistrate No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur may be
quashed and set aside.
Shri Ram Prakash Kumawat learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No. 2 complainant submits that respondent No.
2 complainant is present in person and she has no objection in
allowing this petition and quashing criminal proceedings of aforesaid
Learned PP. Shri Jitendra Shrimali did not object in
allowing this misc. petition.
In the matter of In the matter of Gyan Singh vs. State
of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 S.C.C. 303 Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed that :-
“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 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
The dispute between parties is matrimonial in nature
which is private one. The same has already been settled amicably.
Compromise has already been submitted before the Trial Court which
has been verified and on the basis of compromise petitioner accused
has already been acquitted for offence under Section 406 IPC,
therefore, continuing criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC is
abuse of process of Court and in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court
deserves acceptance which is hereby allowed and the criminal case
NO. 239/2015 pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.
15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur for offence under Sections 498A and
406 IPC is quashed and set aside.
[BANWARI LAL SHARMA], J.