Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Roopa Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 January, 2022
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5949/2021
Roopa Ram S/o Bhinya Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 46 Years,
Lamba, Tehsil Bilada, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Arjun Ram S/o Gulab Chand Jatiya, Jatiya Mohalla, Pipadi
City, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shobha Prabhakar (through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
Mr. Mohit Sankhala for respondent
No.2 (through VC)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 05/01/2022 This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.428/2014 lodged at Police Station Bilada, Distt. Jodhpur Rural for the offences under Sections 427, 447, 379 IPC and Section 3(1)/3(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases (for short 'the SC/ST Act'). (Downloaded on 06/01/2022 at 08:32:12 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-5949/2021] Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 has levelled allegation against the petitioner that on 5.11.2014, the petitioner had allegedly tried to encroach over his land with JCB machine and abused him with casteist remarks.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a factual report dated 4.1.2022, wherein it is mentioned that though the police has found offences under Sections 447, 427 IPC and Section 3(G)(S), 3(2)(S)(A) of the SC/ST Act proved against the petitioner, however, offence under Section 379 IPC has not been found proved against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably vide compromise deed dated 19.8.2021, which is on record, the FIR No.428/2014 lodged at Police Station Bilada, Distt. Jodhpur Rural for the offences under Sections 447, 427 IPC and Section 3(G)(S), 3(2)(S)(A) of the SC/ST Act against the petitioner may kindly be quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has conceded that the dispute between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner has already been resolved. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
(Downloaded on 06/01/2022 at 08:32:12 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-5949/2021] It is admitted that the dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably. Today also, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the FIR No.428/2014 lodged at Police Station Bilada, Distt. Jodhpur Rural for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 379 IPC and Sections 3(G)(S), 3(2)(S)(A) of the SC/ST Act against the petitioner as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties.
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 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 (Downloaded on 06/01/2022 at 08:32:12 PM) (4 of 5) [CRLMP-5949/2021] 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."
Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the FIR No.428/2014 lodged at Police Station Bilada, Distt. Jodhpur Rural for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 379 IPC and (Downloaded on 06/01/2022 at 08:32:12 PM) (5 of 5) [CRLMP-5949/2021] Section 3(G)(S), 3(2)(S)(A) of the SC/ST Act against the petitioner, it is a fit case wherein the FIR pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra) and in the facts and circumstances of the case as noted above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.428/2014 lodged at Police Station Bilada, Distt. Jodhpur Rural for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 379 IPC and Section 3(G)(S), 3(2)(S)(A) of the SC/ST Act against the petitioner is hereby quashed.
Stay petition is disposed of.
The factual report dated 4.1.2022 submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor is taken on record.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 29-msrathore/-
(Downloaded on 06/01/2022 at 08:32:12 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)