Gulab Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 560 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 560 Raj
Judgement Date : 11 January, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gulab Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 January, 2022

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 74/2022

1. Gulab Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 155-H, Pocket A-3, Lig Flates, Mayur Vihar Phase - 3, Delhi.

2. Sohan Singh S/o Vijay Singh, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 155-H, Pocket A-3, Lig Flates, Mayur Vihar Phase - 3, Delhi.

3. Smt. Inder Kanwar W/o Shri Sohan Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 155-H, Pocket A-3, Lig Flates, Mayur Vihar Phase - 3, Delhi.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Smt. Durga Kanwar W/o Gulab Singh, D/o Madhu Singh, R/o Plot No. 69, Ma Santoshi Nagar, Titaradi, Udaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepika Purohit for Mr. Anuj Sahlot (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP Mr. DS Sodha (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

11/01/2022

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been preferred by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the

criminal proceedings pending against them before the Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as

'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No.16907/2015,

whereby the trial court vide order dated 4.12.2021 has attested

the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 406

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-74/2022]

IPC, but refused to attest the compromise for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A 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 Women Police Station, Distt.

Udaipur has registered an FIR No.38/2014 against the petitioners.

After investigation, the police filed charge- sheet against the

petitioners for offences under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. in the

court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur, wherein

the trial is pending against them for the aforesaid offences.

During the pendency of trial, an application was preferred on

behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent No.2 while

stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and,

therefore, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners

may be terminated.

The trial court vide order dated 4.12.2021 has allowed the

parties to compound the offence under Section 406 I.P.C.,

however, rejected the application so far as it relates to

compounding the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioners for quashing the said criminal proceedings against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the

complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioners have already

entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioners

have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections

406 I.P.C., there is no possibility of their conviction for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. It is also argued that no

useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the

petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C.

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-74/2022]

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 offence punishable under

Section 498-A 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 Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-74/2022]

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 overall facts and circumstances

of the case and looking to the fact that the parties have

already entered into compromise, there is no possibility of

the petitioners being convicted in the case pending against

them. When once the matrimonial dispute has been settled

by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be

served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending against

the petitioners.

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-74/2022]

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