Ramit Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1691 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1691 Raj
Judgement Date : 3 February, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ramit Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 February, 2022

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 279/2022

Ramit Sharma S/o Lt. Durga Das, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Sharma, R/o Chankpada Katala, Rani Bazar, Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Smt. Hema Dogra W/o Rami Sharma D/o Balwant Ray Sharma, Behind Obc Bank, Near Kothari Hospital, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Matoria (through VC) For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Zafar Khan (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

03/02/2022

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

been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the

proceedings pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate

No.1, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in

Criminal Case No.145/2020 - State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramit

Sharma (arising out of FIR No.181/2014 of Women Police Station,

Bikaner), whereby the trial court vide order dated 23.12.2021 has

attested the compromise for the offences punishable under

Sections 406 and 323 IPC but refused to attest the compromise

for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC as the same is

not compoundable.

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

instance of respondent No.2, the Women Police Station, Bikaner

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-279/2022]

has registered an FIR No.181/2014 against the petitioner. After

investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner

for offences punishable under Sections 406, 323 and 498A IPC in

the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner

for the aforesaid offence. During the pendency of the trial, an

application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner as well as the

respondent No.2 while stating that both the parties have entered

into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against

the petitioner may be terminated. The trial court vide order dated

23.12.2021 allowed the parties to compound the offences

punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC, however, rejected the

application so far as it relates to compounding the offence

punisabhle under Section 498A IPC.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the

complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already

entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has

been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and

323 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for

the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. It is also

contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties

have decided to live separately by mutual consent and in this

regard an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 is already filed by them and the same is pending

adjudication before the Family Court, Bikaner. It is also argued

that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial

against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-279/2022]

498A 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 decided to

live separately and the respondent No.2 does not want to press

the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to the

offence punishable under Section 498A IPC.

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

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-279/2022]

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."

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and

looking to the fact that the petitioner and respondent no.2 have

decided to live separately and in pursuance of that appropriate

proceedings are also pending before the Family Court, Bikaner, there

is no possibility of accused-petitioner being convicted in the case

pending against him. When once the matrimonial disputes have been

settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be

served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending.

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-279/2022]

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