HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1208 / 2018
Smt. Himani W/o Shri Vishal Singh D/o Late Shri Mahendra Singh,
Aged About 27 Years, By Caste Rawna Rajput Resident of
Hathiram Ka Oda, Uparla Bas, Near Sankhla Shishu Shala,
Jodhpur. (Complainant).
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan

2. Vishal Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh @ Bhawani Singh, Aged
About 34 Years, (Accused)

3. Bhanwar Singh @ Bhawani Singh S/o Late Shri Balu Singh,
Aged About 59 Years, (Accused)

4. Smt. Vijaylaxmi W/o Shri Bhanwar Singh @ Bhawani Singh,
Aged About 54 Years, (Accused)
All by Caste Rawna Rajput, At Present of 56 Surya Nagar, Matki
Chouraha, Paota c Road, Jodhpur
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Baghela
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. P.C. Solanki
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
01/05/2018

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

been preferred by the complainant-petitioner with the prayer for

quashing the proceedings pending against the private respondents

before the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No.2,

Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in

Criminal Regular Case No.113/2017, arising out of FIR

No.98/2016 of Police Station Mahila Thana East, Jodhpur wherein,
(2 of 6)
[CRLMP-1208/2018]

the trial court vide order dated 2.4.2018 has 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.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has lodged

an FIR No.98/2016 of Police Station Mahila Thana East, Jodhpur

against the private respondents for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. After investigation, the police filed

charge sheet against the private respondents for the aforesaid

offences in the trial court wherein, the trial is pending against the

private respondents.

During the pendency of the trial, an application was

preferred on behalf of the complainant-petitioner and the private

respondents while stating that both the parties have entered into

compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the

private respondents may be terminated.

The learned trial court vide order dated 2.4.2018 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

complainant-petitioner for quashing the said proceedings pending

against the private respondents.

The learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner has

argued that as the complainant-petitioner and the private

respondents have already entered into compromise and on the

basis of it, the private respondents have been acquitted for the
(3 of 6)
[CRLMP-1208/2018]

offence punishable under Sections 406 I.P.C., there is no

possibility of conviction of the private respondents for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. It is also argued that no

useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the

private respondents for the offence punishable under Section

498-A I.P.C. because the same may derail the compromise arrived

at between the parties.

The learned counsel for the private respondents has

admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise

and the complainant-petitioner does not want to press the charges

levelled against the private respondents in relation to 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
(4 of 6)
[CRLMP-1208/2018]

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
(5 of 6)
[CRLMP-1208/2018]

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 complainant-petitioner and private

respondents have entered into compromise, there is no possibility

of private respondents 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
(6 of 6)
[CRLMP-1208/2018]

opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings

pending against the private respondents 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 private respondents

before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur

Metropolitan in Criminal Regular Case No.113/2017, arising out of

FIR No.98/2016 of Police Station Mahila Thana East, Jodhpur for

the offence under Section 498-A IPC are hereby quashed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

Ms rathore