Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manoj Sainani @ Mahendra vs State & Ors on 16 May, 2018
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1509 / 2018
Manoj Sainani @ Mahendra S/o Late Shri Khem Chand Sainani,
Aged About 47 Years, By Caste Sindhi, R/o- 134-E, Class Pratap
Nagar, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Kailash Salvi S/o Late Shri Prem Chand Salvi, R/o- Tanki No.-
2, E Class, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur.
3. Smt. Jamna Bai W/o Late Shri Prem Chand Salvi, R/o
Majawda, P.S. Dabok, Presently R/o- Tanki No.-2, E Class,
Pratap Nagar, Udaipur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Menaria
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Naresh Khatri
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 16/05/2018 This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur City (South), District Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No.1778/2012 (arising out of FIR No.279/2012 of Police Station Bhupalpura, District Udaipur), whereby the trial court vide order dated 17.01.2018 has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 (2 of 5) [CRLMP-1509/2018] and 471 IPC as the same is not compoundable.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint in the trial court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same was forwarded to the concerned police station, however, on 03.11.2012, the Police Station Bhupalpura, District Udaipur registered the FIR No.279/2012 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for aforesaid offences in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. During the pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos.2 and 3 while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be terminated. The trial court vide order dated 17.01.2018 allowed the parties to compound the offence punishable under Sections 420 IPC, however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offences (3 of 5) [CRLMP-1509/2018] punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 467, 468 and 471 IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 do not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
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 (4 of 5) [CRLMP-1509/2018] 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 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."
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-1509/2018] Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have settled their dispute amicably, there is no possibility of accused-petitioner being convicted in the case pending against him. When once the disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending.
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 pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur City (South), District Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.1778/2012 (arising out of FIR No.279/2012 of Police Station Bhupalpura, District Udaipur) are hereby quashed.
Stay petition is disposed of.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.
Abhishek Kumar S.No.23