Rajasthan High Court

Ajay Dhaka S/O Shri Hitendra Dhaka vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 December, 2022

Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand

  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
              BENCH AT JAIPUR

 S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9679/2022

1.     Ajay Dhaka S/o Shri Hitendra Dhaka, Aged About
       22    Years,     Resident       Of     Nawalgarh,          District
       Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
2.     Salil Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Ramanand Gupta,
       Aged     About       22    Years,     Resident        Of    Village
       Padmada Khurd, Tehsil- Mundawar, District Alwar
       (Rajasthan).
3.     Raj    Kumar         Choudhary         S/o      Shri       Maliram
       Choudhary, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of
       Village Nayawas, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur
       (Rajasthan).
4.     Ankit Bhagor S/o Shri Virendra Singh, Aged
       About 22 Years, Resident Of Village Samra,
       Tehsil- Kirawali, District Alwar ( U.p).
                                                        ----Petitioners
                                 Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2.     Lokesh Kumar S/o Shri Khyali Ram, Resident Of
       Village Ramnagar, Police Station Sarund, Tehsil
       Kotputli, District Alwar (Rajasthan), At Present
       R/o Room No. 44, Aravali Hostel, University Of
       Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj).
3.     Lalit Kumar S/o Shri Khyali Ram, Aged About 21
       Years,   Resident         Of   Village     Ramnagar,        Police
       Station Sarund, Tehsil Kotputli, District Alwar
       (Rajasthan),
                                                     ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta For : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP Respondent(s) Dr. Devendra Kumar for complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

(2 of 7) [CRLMP-9679/2022]

12/12/2022

The instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC has

been submitted by the accused-petitioners for quashing

of the FIR No. 151/2022 registered against them with

Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur City (East) for the

offences under Sections 147, 323, 341, 427 & 504 of IPC

and under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(S), 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va)

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC/ST

Act).

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

during the course of investigation, the complainants have

entered into a compromise with the petitioners and the

written compromise has been submitted before the

Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the

complainant while accepting the factum of compromise

submits that the complainant has no objection if the FIR

in question is quashed. Counsel further submits that

even the complainant and the injured are present in

person before this Court and they also accept the factum

of compromise and they have no objection if the

proceedings arising out of the FIR are quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the FIR has

been registered under SC/ST Act and the same cannot

be quashed on the basis of compromise. He, however,

accepts the factum of compromise having been entered

into between the parties without coercion and duress.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

(3 of 7) [CRLMP-9679/2022]

the case of Manoj Agarwal & Anr. V/s The State of

Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal

(Criminal) No. 8242/2021 decided on 04.03.2022,

therein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has quashed the FIR

registered for the offences punishable under Sections

323, 504 & 506 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(s) & 3(2)

(va) of SC/ST Act by the following order:-

"After we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration what has been stated by respondent No.2(complainant) in his affidavit of which a reference has been made, no purpose is going to be served in permitting the prosecution to proceed any further, and it is nothing but be a clear abuse of the process of law.

                 Consequently,      the    FIR
           No.256/2021, dated 9       th
                                          April,

2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramavtar

V/s State of M.P. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC

966 has quashed the same FIRs lodged under the

provisions of SC/ST Act by observing thus in Para Nos.

12 to 16:-

"12. In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the decision of this Court in Ramgopal (Supra) and re-iterate that the powers of this Court under Article 142 can be

(4 of 7) [CRLMP-9679/2022]

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 post- conviction 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 sub-judice 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 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 even 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.

(5 of 7) [CRLMP-9679/2022]

The Constitution Bench decision in the case of Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India6 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 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 dispute-settling. 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 subject-matter 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 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

(6 of 7) [CRLMP-9679/2022]

depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper-castes. 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 twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based 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."

The aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the cases of Manoj Agarwal (Supra) and Ramavtar

(Supra) settle the legal position in so far as, the power

of this Court to quash proceedings of FIR (in exercise of

powers contained under Section 482 of CrPC) is

concerned in cases where the parties have entered into a

compromise in the cases involving offences under the

(7 of 7) [CRLMP-9679/2022]

provisions of SC/ST Act. The only question which is

required to be borne in mind is that the compromise

must be dealt with free will.

In view of the aforesaid legal position and