Poornima Rajpurohit vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2831 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2831 Raj
Judgement Date : 21 February, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Poornima Rajpurohit vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 February, 2022

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 287/2022

Poornima Rajpurohit S/o Mangilal Rajpurohit, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Bhikhi Bhawan, Street No. 2, Hanuman Hattha, Bikaner - 334001, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Government Advocate.

2. Sayer Devi W/o Late Shri Ramlal, Aged About 59 Years, R/o House No. 37, Laxmi Nagar, Jodhpur.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner             :    Dr. Kshamendra Mathur
For Respondent No.1        :    Mr. Mool Singh Bhati, P.P.
For Respondent No.2        :    Mr. Jagat Tatia (through VC)



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                                     Order

21/02/2022

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 Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Jodhpur District (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial

court') in Case No.1055/2021 (arising out of FIR No.32/2018 of

Police Station Mahamandir, District Jodhpur), whereby the trial

court vide order dated 25.11.2021 has attested the compromise

for the offence punishable under Section 427 IPC but refused to

attest the compromise for the offence punishable under Section

456 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 Mahamandir,

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-287/2022]

District Jodhpur has registered an FIR No.32/2018 against the

petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 218, 219,

221, 379, 380, 427, 458 and 120-B IPC. After investigation, the

police filed final report against the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Sections 427 and 456 IPC in the trial court

wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner for the aforesaid

offences. 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 25.11.2021 allowed the parties to compound the offence

punishable under Section 427 IPC, however, rejected the

application so far as it relates to compounding the offence

punishable under Section 456 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 427 IPC,

there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offence

punishable under Section 456 IPC. It is also argued that no useful

purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the

petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 456 IPC

because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between

the parties.

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-287/2022]

The 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

offence punishable under Section 456 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."

In my opinion, the nature of the offences as alleged in the

impugned FIR is private in nature. There is no reason to doubt

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-287/2022]

that the complainant-respondent no.2 has not entered into

compromise voluntarily and there is nothing adverse in respect of

the conduct of the petitioner 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 petitioner and respondent no.2

have entered into compromise, there is no possibility of accused-

petitioner being convicted in the case pending against him. When

once the disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise,