Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Himmat Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 February, 2023

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2023/RJJD/005728]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 643/2023

Himmat Kumar S/o Nathu Lal Khokhariya, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Samlai, Panwa, Teh. Kherwara, Dist. Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan

2. Sheela Kasota D/o Amra Kasota, aged about 22 years, R/o Karel, Teh. Jhadole (F), Dist. Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kuldeep Sharma on behalf of Mr.Love Jain, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mool Singh Bhati, PP Mr.Naresh Khatri, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

17/02/2023

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

been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the

FIR No.12/2023 registered at Police Station Falasiya, Udaipur for

the offence under Sections 376, 344 of IPC and the entire criminal

proceedings pursuant thereto qua the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already

entered into compromise and on the basis of it, there is no

possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Sections 376, 344 of IPC. It is also argued that

no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against

the petitioner for the aforesaid offences because the same may

derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

[2023/RJJD/005728] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-643/2023]

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that

the parties have already entered into compromise and resolved

their dispute amicably and the respondent No.2 does not want to

press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to

offences punishable under Sections 376, 344 of IPC.

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and

carefully gone through the material available on record.

This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of

Delhi & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2021 decided on

30.07.2021, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

"3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter alia, that the Appellant had committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed that both the Accused (Appellant) and Respondent No. 2 were living together for a considerable while. The complainant's allegation is that the Appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that he is divorced. The complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.

4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a child was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year 2018). As a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them.

5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant - who does not dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution further, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings must be quashed.

6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside;

the FIR (No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be

[2023/RJJD/005728] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-643/2023]

quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not come in the way or in any manner prejudice the contentions of the parties in any other pending proceedings, which shall 20-09-2022 be decided in accordance with law.

7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent."

Learned counsels for the petitioner has submitted the

following order for consideration passed by this Court in S.B.

Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.4119/2021 decided on 06.04.2022

(Dhabba Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), which reads as

follows:-

"1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused- petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.94/2021 registered at Police Station Gida, District Barmer for the offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the I.T. Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of investigation, the petitioner and the complainant have entered into a compromise and thus, no dispute remains pending between them and the complainant does not wish to continue with the present litigation.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the compromise in question has been produced before the Investigating Officer, who has verified the factum of compromise and the same has been executed without any force or coercion.

4. Learned counsel submits that the complaint in question came be to be lodged by the complainant on account of an audio of the conversation between the petitioner and complainant getting viral and now the parties have decided to resolve the dispute having regard to the fact that the petitioner and complainant are close relatives.

[2023/RJJD/005728] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-643/2023]

5. Learned counsel for the complainant also accepts the fact of the compromise and submits that even the husband of the prosecutrix/complainant has signed the compromise.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering that the complainant is aunt (Mami) of the present petitioner and also considering that the FIR in question was lodged under social pressure and also finding that the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by the Larger Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr-reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604], the aforesaid FIR is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.

7. In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.94/2021 registered at Police Station Gida, District Barmer is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.

8. The stay application also stands disposed of."

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

[2023/RJJD/005728] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-643/2023]

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 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 petitioner and respondent No.2

[2023/RJJD/005728] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-643/2023]

have settled their dispute amicably, there is no possibility of

accused-petitioner being convicted in the case pending against

him. When once the disputes have been settled by the mutual

compromise, 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 the criminal proceedings

pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising