Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bharat Chauhan And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 25 January, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5390 / 2014
1. Bharat Chauhan Son of Late Shri Laxman Chauhan, by caste
Khatik,
2. Naveen Chauhan Son of Late Shri Laxman Chauhan, by caste
Khatik,
3.Manoj Chauhan Son of Late Shri Laxman Chauhan, by caste
Khatik,
4.Smt. Maya Chauhan Wife of Shri Bharat Chauhan, by caste
Khatik,
5. Smt. Dropati Wife of Shri Naveen Chauhan, by caste Khatik,
6. Smt. Rajbala Wife of Shri Manoj Chauhan, by caste Khatik,
All Residents of Plot No. 77, Khairbadi, Bandra East, Police Station
Nirmal Nagar, Mumbai (Maharashtra)
---Accused/Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through P.P.
---Respondent
2. Smt. Chandrakanta D/o Late Shri Kishan Lal Ji, W/o Shri Anil
Chauhan, Resident of House No. 621, Gali No. 10, Rishi Galab
Nagar, Galta Gate, Jaipur (Raj.)
---Complainant/Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niraj K. Tiwari on behalf of
Mr. Rakesh Tiwari
For Complainant : Mr. Jitendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, Public Prosecutor
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Order (2 of 5) [CRLMP-5390/2014] 25/01/2018 The present misc. petition is preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners- accused for quashing the entire proceedings of criminal case No. 71/2003 pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur Metro under Section 498-A IPC.
Mr. Niraj K. Tiwari learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1, 2 and 3 are brother-in-law (Jeth) and petitioner No. 4, 5 and 6 are sister-in-law (Jethani) of respondent no. 2/complainant. He submits that the dispute between them is matrimonial in nature, charge sheet was filed under Section 498-A IPC against the present petitioners, parties have settled their dispute amicably, compromise has already been submitted before the Trial Court which has been verified by the learned trial Court but offence under Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable, therefore learned Trial Court refused to attest the compromise for this offence. He submits that after compromise no fruitful purpose will be served continuing the criminal proceedings for offence under Section 498-A IPC, therefore the entire proceedings of criminal case may be quashed and set aside as held in the matter of Gyan Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303. Mr. Jitendra Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2/complainant also supported the aforesaid submissions.
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-5390/2014] Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Jitendra Shrimali also submits that if parties have settled their dispute amicably then the proceedings of criminal case may be quashed.
I have considered the submissions made at bar. In the matter of Gyan Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that :-
"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 (4 of 5) [CRLMP-5390/2014] 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 (5 of 5) [CRLMP-5390/2014] 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.'' Here in the case in hand, also the dispute is matrimonial in nature which is private one which has already been settled by the parties, therefore in view of aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court while exercising powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this petition is allowed and criminal proceedings pending against the present petitioners being Criminal Case No. 71/2003 pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur Metropolitan is quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise.
(BANWARI LAL SHARMA)J. S. Kumawat/29