Pushpa Kanwar vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 920 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 920 Raj
Judgement Date : 19 January, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pushpa Kanwar vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 January, 2022

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6803/2021

Smt. Pushpa Kanwar W/o Sh. Umed Singh, Aged About 30 Years, 11-A Sardul Ganj Bikaner (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Umed Singh S/o Sh. Laxman Singh Chouhan, Dholi Ghati Nh 8 Bheem Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.).

3. Smt. Rekha Devi W/o Laxman Singh Chauhan, Dholi Ghati Nh 8 Bheem Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Gautam (through VC)

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP

Ms. Archana Purohit for Mr. M.S.

Rapurohit for the private respondents (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

19/01/2022

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

has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with

the order dated 29.3.2019 passed by the Judicial

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-6803/2021]

Magistrate No.3, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court') in

CRC No.634/2019.

Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that

the petitioner and the private respondents have already

settled their dispute amicably. It is submitted that during

pendency of the trial, the petitioner has filed an

application before the trial court with a prayer for

quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the

private respondents on the basis of compromise arrived

at between them, whereby the trial court vide order

dated 29.3.2019 has attested the compromise for the

offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC, but

refused to attest the same for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A IPC, as the same is non-

compoundable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as

the petitioner and the private respondents have already

entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the

private respondents have been acquitted for the offences

punishable under Sections 406 and 323 I.P.C., there is no

possibility of their conviction for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A I.P.C. Learned counsel for the

petitioner, therefore, has submitted that the petitioner

does not want to press the charges levelled against the

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-6803/2021]

private respondents as the dispute between the parties

has already been settled amicably.

Learned counsel for the private respondents has

admitted the factum of compromise arrived at between

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 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

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-6803/2021]

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 parties have

already settled their dispute amicably, there is no

possibility of the accused being convicted in the case

pending against them. When once the matrimonial

disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise,

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-6803/2021]

then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the

criminal proceedings pending.

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