Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shakti Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 February, 2022

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 308/2022

1. Shakti Singh S/o Jai Singh, Aged About 51 Years, B/c Mali, R/o Sankhalo Ka Bas, Jodhpur.

2. Prem Singh S/o Mangi Lal Kachhawaha, Aged About 61 Years, B/c Mali, R/o 43, Ashok Nagar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Kishna Ram S/o Arjun Ram, Aged About 41 Years, Shiv Sagar, Magra Punjala, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Subhash Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. M.R. Choudhary

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

09/02/2022

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

been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the

criminal proceedings pending against them before the Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as

'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.853/2016, whereby the trial

court vide order dated 08.12.2021 has attested the compromise

for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, but refused to

attest the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and

120-B IPC as the same is non-compoundable.

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-308/2022]

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

instance of respondent No.2, the Police Station Udaimandir,

Jodhpur registered the FIR No.85/2012 against the petitioners for

the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B

IPC. After investigation, the police have filed charge-sheet against

the petitioners before the trial court and the trial court has framed

charges for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468,

471 and 120-B IPC, wherein the trial is pending against them.

During pendency of trial, an application was preferred on

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

stating therein that both the parties have entered into

compromise and, therefore, the criminal proceedings pending

against the petitioners may be terminated.

The trial court vide order dated 08.12.2021 has allowed the

parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 420

IPC, however, rejected the application so far as it relates to

compounding the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468,

471 and 120-B I.P.C.

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

complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioners have already

entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioners

have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 420

IPC, there is no possibility of their conviction for the offences

punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. It is also

argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the

trial against the petitioners for the offences punishable under

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-308/2022]

Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC because the same may

derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also 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 offences punishable under

Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B 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

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-308/2022]

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 victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-308/2022]

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 petitioners and respondent No.2

have already entered into compromise and settled their dispute

amicably, there is no possibility of the petitioners being convicted

in the case pending against them. When once the dispute has

been settled by the 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.