Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ashok Kumar Joshi vs State on 5 August, 2021

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2972/2018

1. Ashok Kumar Joshi S/o Sh. Bajrang Lal, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Vpo Punsisar, Teh. Taranagar, Dist. Churu.

2. Rohit Kumar @ Rohitash Joshi S/o Sh. Bajrang Lal, Aged About 23 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Vpo Punsisar, Teh. Taranagar, Dist. Churu.

3. Bajrang Lal S/o Sh. Ram Lal Joshi, Aged About 49 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Vpo Punsisar, Teh. Taranagar, Dist. Churu.

4. Sita Devi W/o Sh. Bajrang Lal, Aged About 46 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Vpo Punsisar, Teh. Taranagar, Dist. Churu.

5. Ram Lal S/o Sh. Laxminarayan Joshi, Aged About 78 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Vpo Punsisar, Teh. Taranagar, Dist. Churu.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State, Through PP

2. Smt. Varsha W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Joshi, D/o Sh. Vinod Kumar, aged about 27 years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Vill. Gogasar, Teh. Ratangarh, Dist. Churu (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

05/08/2021

This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for

quashing of the FIR No.219/2018 dated 29.7.2018 of

(2 of 6) [CRLMP-2972/2018]

Police Station Ratangarh, Distt. Churu for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354, 376,

511 and 377 of IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners

that on the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent

No.2, proceedings under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354,

376, 511 and 377 of IPC are pending. It is further

contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the

respondent No.2 and the petitioners have compromised

the matter and resolved the dispute between them

amicably.

Today, learned counsel for the petitioners has

produced a compromise dated 29.7.2021 arrived at

between the parties before this Court. The same is taken

on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that

since the dispute has already been amicably settled

between the parties, the FIR No.219/2018 dated

29.7.2018 of Police Station Ratangarh, Distt. Churu for

the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323,

354, 376, 511 and 377 of IPC against the petitioners may

kindly be quashed.

                                     (3 of 6)                    [CRLMP-2972/2018]


    Learned     counsel       for      the      respondent           No.2    has

conceded that the dispute between the respondent No.2

and the petitioners has already been settled amicably.

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the

learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material

available on record.

It is admitted that the dispute between the parties

has already been settled amicably. Today also, learned

counsel for the respondent No.2 has categorically

submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to

press the allegations levelled in the FIR No.219/2018

dated 29.7.2018 of Police Station Ratangarh, Distt. Churu

for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406,

323, 354, 376, 511 and 377 of IPC 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

(4 of 6) [CRLMP-2972/2018]

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 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

(5 of 6) [CRLMP-2972/2018]

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."

It is noticed that the dispute between the parties

was matrimonial in nature, wherein the respondent No.2

has alleged that after her marriage with the petitioner

No.1, the petitioners started harassing her for dowry and

caused physical and mental cruelty upon her. It seems

that the dispute has now been settled between the

parties amicably.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and looking to the fact that the dispute between

the parties has already been settled amicably and the

respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations

levelled in the FIR No.219/2018 dated 29.7.2018 of