Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Himanshu Mali vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:19615) on 3 May, 2024
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2024:RJ-JD:19615]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2708/2024
1. Himanshu Mali S/o Mahesh Chandra Mali, Aged About 20
Years, R/o Fouz Mohalla, Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
2. Bharat Mali S/o Udai Lal Mali, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Near Singhviji Ki Haveli, Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
3. Prahlad Kumawat S/o Shri Hari Om Kumawat, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Ward No. 20 Fouz Mohalla, Nathdwara,
Dist. Rajsamand.
4. Tanmay Mali S/o Shri Om Prakash Mali, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Fouz Mohalla, Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
5. Deepak Bhati S/o Kailash Bhati, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Fouz Mohalla, Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
6. Harshal Kumawat S/o Prakash Kumawat, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Fouz Mohalla, Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
7. Himanshu Mali S/o Mahesh Mali, Aged About 27 Years, R/
o Fouz Mohalla, Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
8. Asim Gori S/o Julfikar, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Lal
Bazar, Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
9. Lucky Kumawat S/o Ram Chandra Kumawat, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Holi Magra, Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
10. Dhruv Bhati S/o Kailash Bhati, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Holi Magra, Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
11. Chirag Regar S/o Gopal, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Fouz
Mohalla, Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
12. Mehul Mali S/o Ashok Mali, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Fouz Mohalla, Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
13. Bhavesh Roi S/o Laxmikant, Aged About 18 Years, R/o
Tara Khera, Harijan Basti, Tehsil Masuda Baral - 2,
Bijaynagar, Dist. Ajmer.
14. Prabhat Ajmera S/o Lalit Ajmer, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Behind Singhviji Ki Haveli, Girirajpura, Fouz Mohalla,
Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
15. Prajwal Mali S/o Mahesh Mali, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Fouz Mohalla, Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
16. Akshay Kumawat S/o Giriraj Kumawat, Aged About 20
Years, R/o Opp. Charbhuja Mandir, Fouz Mohalla,
Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
(Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 09:06:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:19615] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-2708/2024]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Anil Kumawat S/o Shri Giriraj Kumawat, R/o Fouz
Mohalla, Near Charbhuja Mandir, Nathdwara, Dist.
Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, P.P.
Mr. R.S.Chouhan for R-2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order 03/05/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 107/2024 registered at Police Station Shrinathji Mandir, District Rajsamand for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 458 IPC and all the consequential criminal proceedings pursuant thereto on the basis of compromise.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners and the complainant-respondent No.2 have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the investigation/trial against the petitioners for the alleged offence because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners (Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 09:06:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:19615] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-2708/2024] has also filed a copy of the mutual compromise arrived at between the parties stating therein that the parties have mutually settled the disputes amicably and respondent-complainant does not want to continue the proceedings in the aforesaid FIR.
4. 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 in the FIR against the petitioners as aforesaid. He submits that the complainant-respondent has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the latest factual report and opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR.
6. 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 are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim (Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 09:06:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:19615] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-2708/2024] 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."
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and thereby there is no possibility of accused-petitioners being convicted in the case lodged against them. When once the disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending.
8. 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 (Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 09:06:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:19615] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-2708/2024] pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No. 107/2024 registered at Police Station Shrinathji Mandir, District Rajsamand and all consequential proceedings for the offences alleged against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Stay application also stands disposed of.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J 268-RP/-
(Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 09:06:04 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)