—

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Sunil Bhati vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:12612) on 18 March, 2024

Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit

Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit

[2024:RJ-JD:12612]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 401/2024

Sunil Bhati S/o Pusa Ram Bhati, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Behind Girls Higher Secondary School, Barmer, District Barmer.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Priyanka W/o Ashok Mohan Lal Modi, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Haryali, District Sanchore, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Hedau
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, P.P.
Mr. Om Rajpurohit for R-2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order

18/03/2024

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

been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the criminal

proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC,

pending against him before learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate No.2, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial

court’) in Criminal Case No. 21/2021 “State Vs. Sunil Bhati”,

arising out of FIR No.201/2020 P.S. Sindhari, District Barmer,

wherein the trial court vide order dated 21.10.2023 while refusing

to attest the compromise for the offence under Section 498A IPC

against the petitioner as the same is non- compoundable, rejected

the compromise application and continued the trial for the said

offence.

(Downloaded on 18/03/2024 at 08:37:23 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:12612] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-401/2024]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the

petitioner and the complainant-respondent No.2 have already

entered into compromise and on the basis of it, there is no

possibility of his conviction for the offence under Section 498A

I.P.C. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by

continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offence under

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

arrived at between the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also 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 offence under Section 498A

I.P.C.

4. 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

(Downloaded on 18/03/2024 at 08:37:23 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:12612] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-401/2024]

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
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.”

5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case

and looking to the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.2

have settled their dispute amicably, there is no possibility of

accused-petitioner being convicted in the case pending against

him before the trial court. When once the disputes have been

settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would

be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending.

6. Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Gian Singh’s case (supra), this Court is of the

(Downloaded on 18/03/2024 at 08:37:23 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:12612] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-401/2024]

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

pending against the petitioner before the trial court can be

quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the

criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the trial

court for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. in Criminal Case

No. 21/2021 “State Vs. Sunil Bhati.” are hereby quashed.

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J
300-RP/-

(Downloaded on 18/03/2024 at 08:37:23 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)