Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Padma Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 February, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 588/2022
Padma Ram S/o Shri Hansaram, Aged About 41 Years, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Village Siyakara, Tehsil And District Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mankaram @ Jeetu Chouhan S/o Shri Chamnaji, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Village Siyakara, Tehsil And District Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Hardik Gautam
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. M.S. Bhati, P.P.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. V.K. Bhadu
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
11/02/2022
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,
Sirohi (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal
Original Case No.1017/2010 (arising out of FIR No.68/2010 of
Police Station Kalandari, District Sirohi), whereby the trial court
vide order dated 01.11.2021 has attested the compromise for the
offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but refused to attest the
compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468
and 471/109 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 Police Station Kalidnry District
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-588/2022]
Sirohi has registered the FIR No.68/2010 against the petitioner.
After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner
for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471/109 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 learned trial court vide
order dated 01.11.2021 allowed the parties to compound the
offence under Section 420 IPC, however, rejected the application
so far as it relates to compounding the offences under Sections
467, 468 and 471/109 IPC.
The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the
petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him.
The 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 offence punishable under Section 420 IPC,
there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the
offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471/109 IPC. It
is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by
continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471/109 IPC because the
same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.
The 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
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-588/2022]
against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under
Sections 467, 468 and 471/109 IPC.
Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated
29.09.2021 rendered in Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012) along with
Krishnappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal
No.1488/2012), after taking into consideration its earlier
decisions rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported
in (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Punjab and Ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and several
other judgments has held as under:-
"19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section
320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the
compromise between the parties in respect of offences
'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-
ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds
of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such
powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in
the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in
mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious
of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii)
Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and
the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to
and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or
other relevant considerations."
There is no reason to doubt that the complainant-
respondent no.2 has not entered into compromise voluntarily
and there is nothing adverse in respect of the conduct of the
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-588/2022]
petitioners prior to and after the occurrence of the purported
offences.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case
and looking to the fact that the dispute between the parties has
already been settled amicably and the complaianant-respondent
No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the
impugned FIR, it is a fit case wherein the proceeding pending
against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Ramgopal (supra) and in the facts and
circumstances as noted above, this criminal misc. petition is
allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the
petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Criminal
Original Case No.1017/2010 (arising out of FIR No.68/2010 of
Police Station Kalandari, District Sirohi) are hereby quashed.
Stay petition is disposed of.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.73
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
