Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Keshav Singh And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 16 September, 2016
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1975/2016
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. STAY APPL. NO.1998/2016
1. Keshav Singh S/o Shri Kanwar Singh, aged about 34
years, R/o Villages Ajit Katara, P.S. Bado Bheem
District Karauli, Rajasthan.
2. Jitendra Poonia S/o Shri Bhagirath Poonia, aged
about 47 years, R/o H.No. A-51, Hanuman Nagar,
Khatipura, Police Thana Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur
Sahar, Jaipur.
3. Jagdish Bhadu S/o Shri Har Chand Bhadu, aged about
53 years, R/o Dulmani Jatan, Mandi Pilibangan, P.S.
Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
...Accused/Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.
Respondent
2. Seema Bhutani W/o Shri Satya Narayan Bhutani, Resident of Jaipur.
...Complainant/Respondent DATE OF ORDER : : 16th September, 2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ ******* Shri Jagmeet Singh for the petitioners. Shri R.R. Baisla, P.P. for the State.
Shri Shivanshu Godara for the complainant.
## This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused-petitioners for 2 quashment of trial in Sessions Case No.180/2010 in F.I.R. No.140/10 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 447, 427 and 120B IPC.
It is contended that complainant-Seema Bhutani Lodged FIR No.653/2007 before the Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 447, 427 and 120B of IPC against the accused- petitioners. After investigation, the challan was filed in the above FIR and the charges were framed under Section 467, 468, 471, 447, 427 and 120B of IPC and the trial is in process before the learned court below. During the trial, a compromise arrived at between the parties and the same was produced before the learned court below. On the basis of said compromise, accused petitioners have been acquitted under Section 447 and 427, which are compoundable and the remaining sections i.e. 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC were non-compoundable therefore the trial on these charges has been kept pending vide order dated 9.2.2016 and the next date is 28.4.2016. Hence this petition.
Learned counsel for accused-petitioners has cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab - (2012) 10 SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi and 3 Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another - (2003) 4 SCC 675 in support of his arguments.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh, supra, observed that quashing of complaint or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. The two powers are distinct and different although ultimate consequence may be same viz., acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal 4 sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and, the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R., if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.
The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another - (2003) 4 SCC 675, considered the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings and held that High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under 5 Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 320 of the IPC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Indisputably, in the present case the accused- petitioners and complainant-respondent have amicably settled their disputes and arrived at compromise and complainant has filed the application to this effect and accused-petitioners thereupon have been acquitted for offence under Sections 447 and 427, which are compoundable, there is no purpose to continue the criminal proceedings between the parties.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The proceedings in Sessions Case No.180/2010 are dropped and consequently the F.I.R. No.653/2007 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur is quashed and set-aside.
This also disposes of stay application.
(Mohammad Rafiq),J.
RS/33