Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Yudhisthar Kumar vs State & Anr on 2 November, 2016
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRIMINAL MISC.(PET.)(CRLMP) NO. 3185 of 2016
Yudhisthar Kumar S/o Shri Deen Dayal, by caste
Arora, aged about 45 years, resident of 23 BB
Bera, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.
2. Banwari Lal S/o Shri Makhan Lal, by caste Arora,
resident of Ward No.10, Padampur, District Sri
Ganganagar.
...Respondents
Date of Order :: 02.11.2016
HON'BLE MR. P.K. LOHRA, J.
Mr.C.S.Kotwani, for the Petitioner.
Mr.M.S.Panwar, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr.Mahesh Chandra Tak, for the respondent-
complainant.
ORDER
------------
BY THE COURT :
Petitioner has laid this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 04.10.2016 and the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No.188/2011 in Criminal Case No.621/2011, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial [2] Magistrate, Padampur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that there was a trivial dispute between accused person and the complainant culminating into the aforesaid criminal case and the criminal prosecution of the petitioner. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that parties have sorted out their dispute and eventually compromise has been arrived at between the rival parties. In view of compromise between the parties, it is submitted by the learned counsel that now it is not worthwhile to continue the further proceedings.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has very candidly submitted that
compromise has been arrived at and now no dispute, as such, survives between the parties.
Learned trial Court has declined to compound the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC and rejected the application in view of embargo under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Well, it is true that offences attributed to the petitioner i.e. under Section 467, 468 & 471 IPC are not compoundable and offence under Section 420 is compoundable subject to leave of the Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C, but then now a compromise has been arrived at between the rival parties, this Court can very well exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ex debito justitiae. Reliance, in this [3] behalf, can be profitably made to a decision of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC 426. In this verdict, Supreme Court has held that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are independent of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and in the event of compromise being arrived at, Court can very well exercise its inherent powers to clog the proceedings perpetually.
Taking into account the entire fact scenario, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.10.2016 is set aside and the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No.188/2011 in Criminal Case No.621/2011, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padampur are also hereby quashed and set aside.
( P.K. LOHRA ),J.
Bharti/55