Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narpat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 December, 2022

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7610/2022

Narpat Singh S/o Shri Munnilal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Bagtaram Ji Bera, Mandor, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Madanlal S/o Shri Surjaram, Aged About 21 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Village Netada, Tehsil Bawri, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shekhar Mewara For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP Mr. Shyam Vyas

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

02/12/2022

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

been preferred for quashing of FIR No.252/2022 registered at

Police Station Mandore, Jodhpur City East for the offences under

Sections 323, 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(S) and 3(1)va) of

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. Learned counsel for the parties have shown order dated

17.10.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in

Pooja Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B.

Criminal Misc. Petition No.5790/2022], which reads as

follows:

"1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-

petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.184/2022 registered at Police Station

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-7610/2022]

Mandore, District Jodhpur seeking petitioners' prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 354 & 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the investigation, the petitioners have entered into a compromise with the complainants and the written compromise has been placed before the Investigating Officer, pursuant to direction given by this Court on 08.09.2022, who has verified the same.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the FIR has been registered under the provisions of SC/ST Act, same cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. He, however, accepts the factum of compromise having been entered into without coercion and duress.

4. In order to support his contention that FIR/proceedings under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC/ST Act') can be quashed, learned counsel for the petitioners invites Court's attention towards the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 5228.

5. In the above referred case of Ramawatar (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed thus :

"12. In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the decision of this Court in Ramgopal (Supra) and reiterate that the powers of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the complainant/victim and the accused.

13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in postconviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appellate court.

The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the superior court's plenary powers to do complete

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-7610/2022]

justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extra- ordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow - hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).

14. With respect to the second question before us, it must be noted that ven though the powers of this Court under Article 142 are wide and far reaching, the same cannot be exercised in a vacuum. True it is that ordinary statutes or any restrictions contained therein, cannot be constructed as a limitation on the Court's power to do "complete justice". However, this is not to say that this Court can altogether ignore the statutory provisions or other express prohibitions in law. In fact, the Court is obligated to take note of the relevant laws and will have to regulate the use of its power and discretion accordingly. The Constitution Bench decision in the case of Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India & Anr. has eloquently clarified this point as follows: "48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 has the power to make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice "between the parties in any cause or matter pending before it". The very nature of the power must lead the Court to set limits for itself within which to exercise those powers and 6 (1998) 4 SCC 409, 48 ordinarily it cannot disregard a statutory provision governing a subject, except perhaps to balance the equities between the conflicting claims of the litigating parties by "ironing out the creases" in a cause or matter before it. Indeed this Court is not a court of restricted jurisdiction of only dispute- settling. It is well recognised and established that this Court has always been a law maker and its role travels beyond merely disputesettling. It is a "problem solver in the nebulous areas" (see K. Veeraswami v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] but the substantive statutory provisions dealing with the subjectmatter of a given case cannot be altogether ignored by this Court, while making an order under Article 142. Indeed, these constitutional powers cannot, in any way, be

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-7610/2022]

controlled by any statutory provisions but at the same time these powers are not meant to be exercised when their exercise may come directly in conflict with what has been expressly provided for in a statute dealing expressly with the subject."

15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of uppercastes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twinfold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of castebased atrocities.

16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C."

6. The aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court settles the legal position so far as this Court's power to quash the proceedings/FIR (in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure) is concerned, in cases where the parties have entered into compromise in the cases involving offences under the provisions of SC/ST

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-7610/2022]

Act. The only caution which is to be borne in mind is, that the compromise must be with free will.

7. It is to be noted that petitioners and the complainants have appeared before the Investigating Officer, who has sent his factual report indicating that the parties have arrived at a compromise and same was executed without any undue influence.

8. In view of the aforesaid legal position and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar (supra), the FIR is liable to be quashed in the face of compromise between the parties, although, the offences are not compoundable.

9. In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.184/2022 registered at Police Station Mandore, District Jodhpur is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.

10. The stay application also stands disposed of."

3. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a

decision of Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh V/s. State of

Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303]

4. Learned PP has verified the compromise.

5 In light of aforesaid order, the present petition is allowed and

FIR No.252/2022 registered at Police Station Mandore, Jodhpur

City East for the offences under Sections 323, 341 IPC and Section

3(1)(r), 3(1)(S) and 3(1)va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act along with entire proceeding pursuant thereto is hereby

quashed and set aside.

All pending applications stand disposed of.