Akshay Mathur vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1434 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1434 Raj
Judgement Date : 1 February, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Akshay Mathur vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 February, 2022

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 44/2022

1. Akshay Mathur S/o Roshan Lal, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Kayasth, R/o Plot No. 22, 2Nd B Road, Opp Gandhi Maidan, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

2. Abhishekh Mathur S/o Rohan Lal, Aged About 36 Years, B/c Kayasth, R/o Plot No. 22, 2Nd B Road, Opp Gandhi Maidan, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Smt. Sanyogita Mathur D/o Sh. Narendra Srivastava, B/c Kayasth, R/o Opp Dairy Anand Rathi, Nearby Blg Office, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Lalit Solanki (through VC)
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
                               Mr. Sushil Kumar Prajapat                     for
                               complainant (through VC)



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                         Judgment / Order

01/02/2022

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

been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the criminal

proceedings pending against them before the Special Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, PCPNDT Act Cases, Jodhpur Metro

(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case

No.04/2018, whereby the trial court vide order dated 17.12.2021

has refused to attest the compromise for the offence under

Section 498-A IPC as the same is non-compoundable.

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-44/2022]

Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the

instance of respondent No.2, an FIR No.184/2017 was registered

at Women Police Station, District Jodhpur (City West) against the

petitioners. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet

against the petitioners for offence under Section 498-A IPC in the

trial court, wherein the trial is pending against them for the

aforesaid offence.

During pendency of trial, an application was preferred on

behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent No.2 stating

therein that since both the parties have entered into compromise,

the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners may be

terminated. The trial court vide order dated 17.12.2021 has

refused to attest the compromise for the offence under Section

498-A IPC. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred

by the petitioners for quashing the said criminal proceedings

pending against them.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the

respondent No.2 and the petitioners have already entered into

compromise, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners

for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. It is also argued that no

useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the

petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A IPC because the

same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that

the parties have already entered into compromise and the

respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled

against the petitioners in relation to the offence under Section

498-A IPC.

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-44/2022]

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

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 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

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-44/2022]

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 overall facts and circumstances of the

case and looking to the fact that the petitioners and the

respondent No.2 have settled their dispute amicably and the

respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levellled

against the petitioners, there is no possibility of the petitioner

being convicted in the case pending against them. When once the

matrimonial disputes have been settled by 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

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

pending against the petitioners 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 petitioners for the

offence under Section 498-A IPC before the trial court in Criminal

Case No.04/2018 are hereby quashed.