Dhapu Devi vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1154 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1154 Raj
Judgement Date : 25 January, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dhapu Devi vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 January, 2022

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

xHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 313/2022

Dhapu Devi W/o Sh. Shankarlal, Aged About 32 Years, Chak 32 Gb, Teh. Sri Vijaynagar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Dungar Ram S/o Fakira Ram, Village Ghadiyala, Teh.

Kolayat, Dist. Bikaner (Raj.).

                                                                         ----Respondents


For Petitioner               :      Mr. NR Budania (through VC)
For Respondent No.1          :      Mr. SK Bhati, PP
For Respondent No.2          :      Mr. Vipin Makkad (through VC)




            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                             Judgment / Order

25/01/2022

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC has been

filed by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceedings

pending before the Judicial Magistrate Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri

Ganganagar (for short 'the trial court') in Criminal Case

No.701/2017 (State Vs. Dhapu Devi) arising out of FIR

No.237/2016 of Police Station Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar,

wherein the trial court has attested the compromise for the

offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but has not attested the

compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471

and 465 IPC as the same is not compoundable..

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent

No.2 lodged a complaint before the trial court against the

petitioner alleging that the petitioner has filed the nomination for

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-313/2022]

contesting the election of the Sarpanch while showing his wrong

age. It is also alleged in the said complaint that the petitioner also

submitted forged and fabricated mark-sheet of class 8 th for the

purpose of contesting the said election. On the said complaint, the

FIR No.237/2016 was registered at Police Station Sri Vijaynagar

District Sri Ganganagar. After investigation, the police filed charge

sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under

Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC before the trial court, however, the

trial court has framed charges against the petitioner for the

offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 465 IPC

and 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 26.11.2021 allowed the parties to compound the offence

punishable under Section 420 IPC, however, not attested the

offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 465 IPC as the

same are not compoundable.

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

I.P.C., there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the

offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 465 I.P.C. It is

also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-313/2022]

the trial against the petitioner for the offences punishable under

Sections 468, 471 and 465 I.P.C. 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

against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under

Sections 468, 471 and 465 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 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

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-313/2022]

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 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 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,

then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal

proceedings pending.

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-313/2022]

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 petitioner can be quashed while exercising