SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 July, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1970/2018

1. Rakesh Kumar S/o Jai Narayan,

2. Dalip Kumar S/o Jai Narayan,

3. Jai Narayan S/o Indraj,

4. Guddi Devi W/o Jai Narayan,
All by caste Brahmin, All resident of Rampura Matoria,
Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh

—-petitionerss
Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan

2. Anusuiya W/o Rakesh Kumar, D/o Dhanraj, B/c Brahmin,
R/o at Present Ward No. 8, Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar.

—-Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. M.S. Panwar, Public Prosecutor
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vipul Dharniya

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

10/07/2018

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

Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar

(hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case

No.20/2013 (State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Ors.) arising out of FIR

No.435/2012 dated 04.12.2012 of Police Station Suratgarh,

District Sri Ganganagar, whereby the trial court vide order dated

14.05.2018 has attested the compromise for the offence
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-1970/2018]

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.

Brief facts of the case are that 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 Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri

Ganganagar and on the basis of said complaint, the FIR

No.435/2012 was lodged against the petitioners. After

investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioners for the

offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498A IPC in the trial

court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioners for the

aforesaid offence. 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 14.05.2018 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 argued that
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-1970/2018]

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 settled

their dispute amicably and the respondent No.2 does not want to

press the charges levelled against the petitioners in relation to

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
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
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-1970/2018]

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.”

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
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-1970/2018]

accused-petitioners being convicted in the case pending against

them. When once the matrimonial disputes have 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 Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sri

Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.20/2013 (State Vs. Rakesh

Kumar Ors.) arising out of FIR No.435/2012 dated 04.12.2012

of Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar are hereby

quashed.

Stay petition is dispoed of.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Abhishek Kumar
S.No.52

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation