HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1154 / 2018
1. Prithvi Raj S/o Shri Ramnarayan, By Caste Bishnoi, Resident
of Ward No. 24, Rawatsar Tehsil Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh.
2. Harbir Singh S/o Shri Ramjas, By Caste Jat, Resident of
Ward No. 13, Rawatsar Tehsil Rawatsar District
Hanumangarh.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Sona Devi W/o Shri Mani Ram Nayak, By Caste Nayak,
Resident of Ward No. 25, Rawatsar Tehsil Rawatsar District
Hanumangarh.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Gupta for Mr. D.L. Mothsra
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. J.D.S. Bhati
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
10/05/2018

Mr. J.D.S. Bhati puts in appearance on behalf of respondent

No.2. Service is complete.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parities the

matter is heard today itself.

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

been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for terminating

the criminal proceedings pending against them before the Special

Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh (hereinafter to be referred as

‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No.59/2016 on the basis of
(2 of 5)
[CRLMP-1154/2018]

compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the

respondent No.2.

Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the

instance of respondent No.2, the FIR No.73/2016 was lodged at

Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh against the

petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 427 IPC and

Section 3(1(XI) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the

SC/ST Act’). After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet

against the petitioners for offences punishable under Section 354

IPC and Sections 3(1)(S) and 3(1)(W) of SC/ST Act in the trial

court, however, the trial court framed charges against the

petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A) IPC

and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act in alternate Sections 3(1)(W)

and 3(1)(R)(S) of SC/ST Act and put the case for trial against the

petitioners for the aforesaid offences.

During the pendency of trial, a joint application was

preferred on behalf of the petitioners and the respondent No.2

before the trial court while stating that both the parties have

entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending

against the petitioners may be terminated in the aforesaid case. It

is further averred in this criminal misc. petition that the trial court

vide order dated 30.03.2018 without deciding the said application

and without attesting the compromise arrived at between the

parties has straightaway summoned the prosecution witnesses

Nos.5 to 9 and 16 for 19.07.2018.
(3 of 5)
[CRLMP-1154/2018]

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that once

the compromise has arrived at between the petitioners and the

respondent No.2, action of the trial court in adjourning the matter

for recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses is illegal. It is

also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing

the trial against the petitioners initiated at the instance of

respondent No.2 because the same may derail the compromise

arrived at between the parties.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioners for quashing the said proceedings against them.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that

the petitioners and the respondent No.2 have already entered into

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

with the criminal proceedings initiated at her instance and she has

no objection if the criminal proceedings pending against the

petitioners is terminated.

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
(4 of 5)
[CRLMP-1154/2018]

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
(5 of 5)
[CRLMP-1154/2018]

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 petitioners and respondent No.2

have settled their dispute amicably, there is no possibility of

accused-petitioners being convicted in the case pending against

them. When once the 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

Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case

No.59/2016 are hereby quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

Abhishek Kumar
S.No.58