Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Devraj 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. 610/2022

Devraj S/o Roop Chand, Aged About 63 Years, B/c Jain, R/o Desantrion Ka Baas, Balotra, Dist. Barmer. Permanent Address- Village Sai, Teh. Shergarh, Dist. Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Vijay Raj @ Vije Raj S/o Kalu Ram Ji, Aged About 89 Years, B/c Jain, R/o Village Sai, Teh. Shergarh, Dist. Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. AA Bhansali (through VC) For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Gurnam Singh (through VC)

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 petitioner-complainant with the prayer for

quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the respondent

No.2 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur

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

No.341/2021, whereby the trial court vide order dated 21.01.2022

has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under

Section 420 IPC, but refused to attest the same for the offence

under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC as the same is non-

compoundable.

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

instance of petitioner, the Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-610/2022]

Commissionerate has registered an FIR No.226/2018 against the

respondent No.2 for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468,

471, 384 and 120-B IPC. After investigation, the police filed

charge-sheet against the respondent No.2 for the offence under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC in the trial court, wherein the

trial is pending against the respondent No.2.

During pendency of trial, an application was preferred on

behalf of the petitioner 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 respondent No.2 may be terminated.

The trial court vide order dated 21.01.2022 has allowed the

parties to compound the offence under Section 420 I.P.C.,

however, rejected the application while observing that the offences

under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC are not compoundable.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioner for quashing the said criminal proceedings pending

against respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the

complainant-petitioner and the respondent No.2 have already

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

No.2 has been acquitted for the offence under Section 420 IPC,

there is no possibility of his conviction for the offence under

Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. It is also argued that no useful

purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the

respondent No.2 for the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471

I.P.C. because the same may derail the compromise arrived at

between the parties.

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-610/2022]

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also admitted

that the parties have already entered into compromise and the

petitioner does not want to press the charges levelled against the

respondent No.2 in relation to offence under Section 467, 468 and

471 I.P.C.

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

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-610/2022]

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 appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-610/2022]

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 already entered into compromise and settled their dispute

amicably, there is no possibility of the respondent No.2 being

convicted in the case pending against him. When once the

property disputes have 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