Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jitendra Rajwani vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 3 March, 2016
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.78/2016 Jitendra Rajwani Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. DATE OF ORDER ::: 03rd March, 2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr. Sanjay Sharma, for petitioner.
Mr. RR Baisal, PP.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and respondent no.2 are husband and wife and dispute is matrimonial in nature which has been compromised amicably and compromise has already been submitted before the trial court i.e. Metropolitan Magistrate No.23, Jaipur Metropolitan and same was verified and attested for the offence u/s 406 IPC. He submits that offence u/s 498A is not compoundable, therefore, it was not attested to this extent. He submits that after compromise, no purpose will be served for continuing the criminal proceeding u/s 498A IPC, therefore, same may be quashed.
Learned PP has no objection.
In the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677, 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 or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victims 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.
From the perusal of order dated 11.8.2015 passed by the learned trial court in criminal case no.730/2015, the compromise was attested and petitioner accused was acquitted for the offence u/s 406 IPC on the basis of compromise. Since offence u/s 498A is not compoundable, therefore, compromise for said offence was rejected.
Since, dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature, therefore, in view of the observations made in the matter of Gian Singh (supra), this petition deserves to be allowed which is hereby allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner for the offence u/s 498A IPC before learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.23, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur being criminal case no.730/2015 is quashed.
[BANWARI LAL SHARMA], J. Brijesh35.
''All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed''.
Brijesh Kumar Jr. PA