Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jitendra Singh vs State on 17 January, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4179/2019
Jitendra Singh S/o Narpat Singh, Aged About 25 Years, B/c
Rajput, R/o Village Devaniya (Pabu Nagar), P.s. Dechu, Dist.
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Jeta Ram S/o Joga Ram, B/c Bheel, R/o Village Devaniya
(Pabu Nagar) P.s. Dechu, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RJ Poonia (through VC)
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. NS Rajpurohit (through VC)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
17/01/2022
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC has been
filed by the petitioner for quashing FIR No.60/2019 of Police
Station Dechu, District Jodhpur Rural for the offences under
Sections 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(R)(S) of Schedule Caste
and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on a
trivial issue, a dispute arose between the petitioner and the
complainant/respondent No.2 and now the same has been settled
amicably.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also admitted
that the dispute between the petitioner and the
complainant/respondent No.2 has already been settled amicably
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-4179/2019]
and the complainant/respondent No.2 does not want to press his
complaint.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a factual report
dated 15.01.2022, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner as
well as the complainant/respondent No.2 have appeared before
the police and submitted that as they have already entered into a
compromise, the complainant/respondent No.2 does not want to
press his complaint.
The FIR lodged against the petitioner is for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(R)(S) of
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989 and the offences under Sections 341, 323 IPC are
compoundable in nature.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
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
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-4179/2019]
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
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."
Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Gian Singh's case (supra) and the fact that the matter
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-4179/2019]
has already been compromised between the parties, I do not find
any reason to continue with the investigation in the FIR
No.60/2019 of Police Station Dechu, District Jodhpur Rural.
Hence, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR
No.60/2019 of Police Station Dechu, Distt. Jodhpur Rural lodged
against the petitioner under Sections 341, 323 IPC and Section
3(1)(R)(S) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby quashed.
Stay petition is disposed of.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
95-mohit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
