Parikshit Rajpurohit vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1155 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1155 Raj
Judgement Date : 25 January, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Parikshit Rajpurohit vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 January, 2022

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6927/2021

1. Parikshit Rajpurohit S/o Lt. Ganpat Rajpurohit, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o H.no. 32, Mahaveer Nagar, Banar Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

2. Smt. Monika W/o Parikshit Rajpurohit, Aged About 22 Years, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o H.no. 32, Mahaveer Nagar, Banar Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Nehru Lal Soni S/o Andaram, H.no. E-8, Masuria, P.s.

Devnagar, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aziz Khan, through VC

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP

Mr. Raja Ram for respondent No.2, through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

25/01/2022

This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the criminal

proceedings pending against them before the

Metropolitan Magistrate No.7, Jodhpur Metro (for short

'the trial court'), arising out of FIR No.0450/2019 of

Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur City West, whereby

the trial court vide order dated 30.11.2021 has refused to

(2 of 6) [CRLMP-6927/2021]

attest the compromise for the offences under Sections

380, 34, 451 IPC as the same are non-compoundable.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has

submitted a report to the Police Station Shastri Nagar,

Jodhpur to the effect that on 18.10.2019, when he was

sitting at his jewellery shop, the petitioners came there

and asked him to show some gold ornaments, on which,

he showed them some gold ornaments, which they

snatched and fled away.

On the said complaint lodged at the instance of

respondent No.2, an FIR No.0450/2019 at Police Station

Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur City West was registered against

the petitioners.

After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet

against the petitioners before the trial court for the

above-referred offences, wherein the trial is pending

against them.

During pendency of the trial, a joint application was

moved on behalf of the petitioners as well as the

respondent No.2 stating therein that since both the

parties have entered into compromise, the criminal

proceedings pending against the petitioners may be

quashed.

(3 of 6) [CRLMP-6927/2021]

The trial court vide order dated 30.11.2021 has

refused to attest the compromise for the offence under

Sections 380, 34, 451 IPC.

The present criminal misc. petition has been

preferred by the petitioners for quashing of the said

criminal proceedings pending against them.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that

since the respondent No.2 and the petitioners have

already entered into compromise, there is no possibility

of conviction of the petitioners for the offence under

Section 380, 34, 451 IPC. It is also argued that no useful

purpose would be served by continuing the trial against

the petitioners for the offences under Sections 380, 34,

451 IPC because the same may derail the compromise

arrived at between the parties.

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 petitioners in

relation to the offences under Sections 380, 34, 451 IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

(4 of 6) [CRLMP-6927/2021]

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 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

(5 of 6) [CRLMP-6927/2021]

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 overall facts and

circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact

that the petitioners and the respondent No.2 have arrived

at a compromise and settled their dispute amicably and

the respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges

pending against the petitioners, there is no possibility of

the petitioners being convicted in the case pending

against them.

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 petitioners