Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Gyarsi Lal vs State Of Raj Asthan Through Pp on 2 February, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.237/2011 Gyarsilal Vs. The State of Rajasthan & another Date of order 2.2.2011 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE MEENA V. GOMBER Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini, for accused-petitioner Mr. Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor for the State-non petitioner no.1 This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'the Code') has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chomu in Criminal Case No.538/2003 titled as State v. Gyarsilal whereby the accused petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Section 420 IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the non-petitioner no.2 (the complainant) but whereby the criminal proceedings in the trial of offences under Sections 467 and 471 IPC, were directed to be continued.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State (non-petitioner no.1). The petitioner as well as the complainant, present in the court were also heard.
It was submitted by both the parties that the parties happen to be the cousins of each other and that after entering into the compromise between them, no dispute remains between them and that if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue for the offences which are not compoundable just for technical reasons, it may adversely affect the relationship between the parties. It was further contended that the parties belong to the same family and time and again Apex Court has held that in such cases the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue just because of the technicalities.
I have considered the arguments of the both the parties.
Having heard the parties in person as well as their counsel, I am of the considered view that when the parties are closely related to each other and when they had settled their dispute by a duly attested compromise, the prosecution of the offences which are not compoundable, should not be allowed to continue for technical reasons until and unless there is some public policy involved in the transaction.
Reliance was placed on the decision of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858, Jagdish Chanana & others v. State of Haryana & another, 2008 Cri.L.J. 2237.
An overall view of the facts show that the dispute between the parties was purely personal in nature arising out of some property transactions and no public policy appears to be involved in the transactions. In the body of the compromise itself, it is written that the parties belong to the same family. They have arrived at a compromise and no dispute remains between them. The complainant i.e. the non-petitioner no.2 herein does not want any further proceedings against the petitioner i.e. the accused. Further that the complainant wants to completely finish all the criminal proceedings pending befoe the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chomu.
In such circumstances, when the parties have decided to not proceed against each other, then in my view, the procesution is always unlikely to suceed in the matter and continuation of proceedings would be a futile exercise.
In Nikhil Merchant's case (supra), Apex Court held that technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of criminal proceedings since in such circumstances when the parties have already set all their disputes at rest, the continuance of the same would be a futile exercise.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that in view of the compromise, further proceedings under Sections 467 and 471 IPC should not continue as continuance of the same will be a futile exercise.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and stands disposed of.
(Dr. Meena V. Gomber) J.
db [All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.] Deepankar Bhattacharya PS