Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jitendra Meena And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 31 January, 2017
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
(1 of 3)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 5988/2016
1. Jitendra Meena Son of Shri Mukti Ram Meena, R/o Village
Pattikala, Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur (raj.).
2. Rishikesh Meena Son of Shri Lalitya Ram Meena, R/o Village
Pattikala, Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur (raj.).
3. Dhara Singh Meena Son of Shri Rameshwar Meena, R/o Village
Pattikala, Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur (raj.).
4. Dhanraj Meena Son of Shri Ramkesh Meena, R/o Village
Pattikala, Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
2. Bhawani Singh Sain Son of Shri Lallu Ram Sain,, R/o 563,
Bhairuji Ki Dhani, Khandip, Police Station Wazirpur, District Sawai
Madhopur (Raj.)
----Respondents
__________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma For Respondent : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, P.P. For Complainant : Mr. Lokesh Tyalor __________________________________________ HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment / Order 31/01/2017 Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of First Information No. 602/2014 registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur East (Rajasthan) for offence under Sections 454, 380 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent no.2 have submitted that parties have amicably settled their dispute.
(2 of 3) Respondent no.2 is present in person and has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. Respondent no.2 has also submitted his affidavit wherein, he has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has stated that he had no objection if the F.I.R. in question is ordered to quashed.
In (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
"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 (3 of 3) 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."
Since, the parties have amicably settled their dispute, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding further with the matter.
Accordingly, in view of compromise effected between the parties, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 602/2014 registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur (East) Rajasthan, for offence under Sections 454, 380 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA)J. Mohita/35