HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6416/2019

Mukesh Jain S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Jain, Aged About 32 Years, By
Caste Jain, R/o Near Sheetal Nath Jain Mandir, Main Bazaar, Ram
Ghat, Panchpadra, P.s. Pachpadra, District Barmer (Rajasthan).

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State, Through P.P.

2. Smt. Jyoti Jain W/o Mukesh Jain D/o Shri Jugal Kishore
Jain, aged 30 years, R/p Pal Balaji, Near Nakoda Kirana
Staore, Pal Balaji, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Dadhich

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP with
Mr.Ravindra Khichi, APP

Mr. Shyam S. Khatri, for the
respondent No.2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

27/01/2020

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

been preferred on behalf of the petitioner with the prayer for

quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him in the

court of Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT

Act Cases) Jodhpur Metro (for short ‘the trial court’) in

connection with Criminal Case No.418/2016 whereby, the trial

court vide order dated 18.11.2019 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.

(Downloaded on 27/01/2020 at 09:41:45 PM)

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-6416/2019]

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2

lodged an FIR against the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. After

investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the

petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A

and 406 I.P.C. in the court concerned wherein, the trial

against the petitioner is pending.

During the pendency of 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 18.11.2019 allowed the

parties to compound the offence under Section 406 I.P.C.,

however, rejected the application so far as it relates to

compounding the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. The

present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioner for quashing the said criminal proceedings pending

against him.

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 I.P.C., there is no possibility of conviction of the

petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A

I.P.C. It is also contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner that since compromise has been arrived at between

the parties by way of mutual consent, no useful purpose

would be served in continuing the trial against the petitioner

(Downloaded on 27/01/2020 at 09:41:45 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-6416/2019]

for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. because

the same may derail the compromise arrived at between

them.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has

admitted that the parties have already entered into

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

the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to the

offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C.

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
(Downloaded on 27/01/2020 at 09:41:45 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-6416/2019]

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.”

Having considered the overall facts and

circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that

compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner

(Downloaded on 27/01/2020 at 09:41:45 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-6416/2019]

and respondent No.2, there is no possibility of the

petitioner being convicted in the case pending against

him before the court concerned. When once the

matrimonial disputes have been settled by way of

mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be

served in 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 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC

before the trial court in connection with Criminal Case

No.418/2016 are hereby quashed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

34-msrathore/-

(Downloaded on 27/01/2020 at 09:41:45 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)