Pancha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 985 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6823/2021 Pancha Ram S/o Bhiya Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 70 Years, B/c Vishnoi, R/o Rampura, Raneri, Bap, Jodhpur Rural, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Jeevan Ram S/o Bhiyaram Vishnoi, Rampura Raneri, Bap, Jodhpur Rural, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxman Bishnoi (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP Mr. Roshan Lal for Complainant (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order 20/01/2022

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC has been

filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.434/2019 of Police

Station Phalodi, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections

420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

complainant has filed a complaint before the ACJM No.1, Phalodi,

Distt. Jodhpur for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and

one Kanwar Lal. The complainant, in his compliant, has alleged the

accused persons made a conspiracy for grabbing the land in

question while making forged documents.

Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the

petitioner and the complainant have already entered into

compromise, which has also been verified by the police

authorities, as mentioned in the factual report submitted by the

learned Public Prosecutor.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6823/2021]

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 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

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-6823/2021]

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."

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

has already been compromised between the parties which has

been verified by the police authorities, I do not find any reason to

continue with the investigation FIR No.434/2019 of Police Station

Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

Hence, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR

No.434/2019 of Police Station Phalodi, District Jodhpur lodged

against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and

120-B IPC is hereby quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 48-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)