HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal IInd Misc. (Pet.) No. 620 / 2018
Prathvi @ Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Pratap Ram Ji,
by caste Suthar, R/o-Village Mani, Tehsil Jodhpur,
Distt. Jodhpur.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Santosh @ Santu W/o Shri Prathvi @ Bhanwar Lal, D/o
shri Oagad Ram Ji, by caste Suthar, R/o-Village Manai, Tehsil
Jodhpur, Distt. Jodhpur at present residing at Paldi Khichiya, Tehsil
Dist.. Jodhpur
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Deepak Menaria
For Respondent(s) : Mr Vikram Rajpurohit
Mr Bharat Bhushan Charan
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
15/05/2018
This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 CrPC has
been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of FIR
No.68/2014 lodged at Police Station, Mahila Thana West, Jodhpur
for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 406, 323, 420,
354 and 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
marriage of petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized,
however, due to some disputes between them, the impugned FIR
[CRLMP-620/2018]
was lodged against the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that since the family court, on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties, has now passed the decree of divorce,
therefore, the impugned FIR may kindly be quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has conceded
that the parties have settled their dispute by mutual consent and
the family court has also passed the decree of divorce.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is admitted that the dispute between the parties
have already been settled and the family court has passed the
decree of divorce by mutual consent. Today also, learned counsel
for the respondent No.2 does not want to continue the
proceedings against the petitioner as the dispute has already been
resolved between the parties.
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
[CRLMP-620/2018]
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
[CRLMP-620/2018]
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 facts and circumstances of the
case and looking to the fact that the dispute between the parties
has already been settled by mutual consent and on the basis of
which the family court has passed the decree of divorce, it is a fit
case wherein the FIR can be quashed while exercising powers
under section 482 CrPC.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Gian Singh’s case (supra) and in the facts and
circumstances as noted above, this criminal misc. petition is
allowed and the FIR No.68/2014 lodged at Police Station, Mahila
Thana West, Jodhpur is hereby quashed.
Stay petition stands disposed of.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.
m.asif/PS
