Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Basant Kumar Paliwal vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 2019
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5088/2019
Basant Kumar Paliwal S/o Sh. Baldev, B/c Paliwal, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Devtalai Kelwa, P.S. Kelwa, Dist. Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Laxman Lal S/o Mohan Lal, B/c Sanwariya, R/o Khatik
Mohalla, Kelwa, P.s. Kelwa, Dist. Rajsamand.
3. Paras S/o Bhera Ji, R/o Regar Mohalla, Kelwa, P.s. Kelwa,
Dist. Rajsamand --complainant
4. Kamlesh S/o Narayan Lal, B/c Regar, R/o Regar Mohalla,
Kelwa, P.s. Kelwa, Dist. Rajsamand.
5. Dinesh S/o Daya Ram Ji, B/c Regar, R/o Regar Mohalla,
Kelwa, P.s. Kelwa, Dist. Rajsamand.
6. Rahul S/o Udai Lal Sanwariya, R/o Rampole Darwaja,
Kelwa, P.s. Kelwa, Dist. Rajsamand.
7. Shanti Lal S/o Narayan Lal, B/c Regar, R/o Regar Mohalla,
Kelwa, P.s. Kelwa, Dist. Rajsamand.
8. Suresh S/o Heera Lal, B/c Regar, R/o Regar Mohalla,
Kelwa, P.s. Kelwa, Dist. Rajsamand.
9. Mahendar Kumar S/o Dal Chand Regar, B/c Regar, R/o
Regar Mohalla, Kelwa, P.s. Kelwa, Dist. Rajsamand.
(Respondent No.3 to 9 are witnesses)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pankaj Gupta on behalf of
Mr.Deepak Menaria, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, KPP
Mr.Abdul Ayaz, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order 24/09/2019 This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending (Downloaded on 25/09/2019 at 08:45:52 PM) (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5088/2019] against the petitioner before the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevension of Atrocities Cases), Rajsamand in S.C.S.T. Case No.2/2019 arising out of FIR No.39/2018, Police Station Kelwa, District Rajsamand for offence under Section 84(C) Information Technoligy Act and Section 3(1)(U)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 05.09.2019 while partly allowing the application filed by the parties refused to compound the offence under Section 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued 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 Section 84(C) Information Technoligy Act and Section 3(1)(U)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 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.
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 Section 84(C) Information Technoligy Act and Section 3(1)(U)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
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 (Downloaded on 25/09/2019 at 08:45:52 PM) (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5088/2019] 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 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 (Downloaded on 25/09/2019 at 08:45:52 PM) (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5088/2019] 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 petitioners and respondent No.2 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 powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevension of Atrocities Cases), Rajsamand in S.C.S.T. Case No.2/2019 arising out of FIR No.39/2018, Police Station Kelwa, District Rajsamand are hereby quashed.
Stay petition stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 320-NK/-
(Downloaded on 25/09/2019 at 08:45:52 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)