Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deepanshu Vagela 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. 6971/2021
Deepanshu Vagela S/o Sh. Dharmendra Vagela, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Vagela Bhawan, Shivgarh, District Ratlam (M.P.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Smt. Anjali W/o Deepanshu Vaghela, D/o Kamlesh Tailor,
At Present R/o Areapati Road, Keshav Maghav Nagar,
Pratapgarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. V.D. Vaishnav
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Laxman Solanki, P.P.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Priyansh Arora
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
21/02/2022
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR
No.32/2021 dated 11.08.2021 of Women Police Station, District
Pratapgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,
406 and 506 IPC.
In the instant case the respondent No.2 filed the impugned
FIR against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the
complaint filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, proceedings for
the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 and 506
IPC are pending. It is further contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the respondent No.2 and the petitioner have
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-6971/2021]
compromised the matter and resolved the matrimonial dispute
between them amicably and decided to live separately.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the
matrimonial dispute has already been amicably settled between
the parties the impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences against
the petitioner may kindly be quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has conceded that
the dispute between the respondent No.2 and petitioner has
already been settled and both of them have decided to live
separately and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the
allegations levelled in the impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences.
Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 03.01.2022,
compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the
Investigating Officer, who is investigating into the allegations
levelled in the impugned FIR and the factual report dated
19.02.2022 of this effect has been submitted by learned Public
Prosecutor.
Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned
Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
It is admitted that the matrimonial dispute between the
parties has already been settled amicably and the same has been
verified by the Investigating Officer.
Today also learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has
categorically submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to
press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR for the
aforesaid offences as the matrimonial dispute has already been
resolved between the parties.
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-6971/2021]
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
that the complainant-respondent no.2 has not entered into
compromise voluntarily and there is nothing adverse in respect of
the conduct of the petitioners prior to and after the occurrence of
the purported offences.
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-6971/2021]
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 decided to live separately and
the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations
levelled in impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences, it is a fit case
wherein the FIR pending against the petitioner can be quashed
while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Keeping in view 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 Court is of the opinion that it
is a fit case, wherein the FIR pending against the petitioner can be
quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the
FIR No.32/2021 dated 11.08.2021 of Women Police Station,
District Pratapgarh for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 323, 406 and 506 IPC is hereby quashed.
Stay petition is disposed of.
The factual report dated 19.02.2022 be taken on record.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.93
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
