Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Mamta Wife Of Shri Mohan Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 October, 2022
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 336/2022
1. Smt. Mamta Wife Of Shri Mohan Lal Barala, R/o Itawa
Bhopji, P.s. Samod, District Jaipur.
2. Mohan Lal Son Of Shri Suwalal, R/o Itawa Bhopji, P.s.
Samod, District Jaipur.
3. Ramesh Nitharwal Son Of Shri Surgyan, R/o Manigaro Ki
Dhani, Tan Jaitpura, P.s. Chomu, District Jaipur.
4. Amit Kumar Son Of Late Shri Anil Kumar, R/o Plot No. 9,
Narayanpuri, Near Kanta Tiraha, Jhotwara, P.s. Jhotwara,
Jaipur.
5. Mukesh Kumar Son Of Ramdas Bhardwaj, R/o Khaspur
Mohalla, Shahjahanpur. P.s. Shahjahanpur, District Alwar.
6. Rakesh Kumar Son Of Late Shri Hari Shankar Sharma,
R/o House No. 24 Heeda Ki Mori, Behind Of Gurudwara,
Sitarampuri, P.s. Ramganj, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Kaluram Jat Son Of Bhagirathmal Jat, R/o Village Itawa
Bhopji, Tehsil Chomu, P.s. Samod, District Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Girraj P. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
11/10/2022
Defect/s pointed out by the Office is ignored.
Application (IA No.1/2022) stands disposed of.
Applicant Sunita Saini and her husband Rajkumar Saini have
filed this application for recall of order dated 05.07.2022 passed in
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5428/2022, whereby, on the basis
(2 of 5) [CRLMA-336/2022]
of compromise between the parties, the FIR No.98/2015
registered with Samod Police Station, Jaipur Rural was quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the accused
of the case was declared elected in the Panchayat Election,
wherein, the accused had produced forged documents of his
educational qualification at the time of election. One of the
applicants was a candidate in the said election.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an Election
Petition was filed against the accused and that petition is still
pending for adjudication. In the meantime, the informant of the
FIR entered into a compromise with the accused person and a
compromise petition was filed before the court below. The court
below accepted compounding of only compoundable offences
whereas, refused to compound the non-compoundable offences.
Moreover, the compromise was entered into at the stage of
prosecution evidence.
In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
(2012) 10 SCC 303, a Three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court laid down certain parameters for consideration of prayer
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal proceeding
of cases involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of
compromise arrived at between the parties.
In para 61 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as
follows:-
"61. 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
(3 of 5) [CRLMA-336/2022]
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 FIR
may be exercised where the offender and the
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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the offender in
relation to the offences under special statutes like
the 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 predominatingly civil flavour
stand on a 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, the
High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if
in its view, because of the compromise between
(4 of 5) [CRLMA-336/2022]
the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends
of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is
put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding."
Thus, it is evident that inherent power of High Court is not
controlled by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. which relates to
schedule of the offences which are compoundable.
Moreover, the Court has categorically mentioned that heinous
and serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot be
wittingly quashed, though the victim family and offenders have
settled the dispute.
The present offence has no such ramification of being
heinous offence. Moreover, the applicants being not even
witnesses before Police during investigation of the case or at the
stage of trial, the applicants have got no concern to challenge the
compromise between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicants have relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI Vs. Maninder
(5 of 5) [CRLMA-336/2022]
Singh reported in 2015(2) WLC (SC) 571, and State of
Maharashtra Through CBI Vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi and
Others reported in 2015(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 92, which are not
applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of
the judgment of a Larger Bench of Three Judges in the case of
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra).
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed as devoid of
merit.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
sunita/89
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
