Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Geegaram @ Geegraj vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 5 October, 2016
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
Crlmp4893/2016
// 1 //
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
ORDER
IN
S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.4893/2016
(With Stay Application No.5075/2016)
Gangaram @ Geegraj Son of Shri Dayalaram, by caste Yadav,
aged 28 years, Resident of Dhani Boda Wali, Tan Sargoth,
District Sikar (Raj.)
Accused/Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through P.P.
Respondent
2. Shimbhu Dayal Son of Shri Kishna Ram, aged 34 years,
by caste Aheer, Resident of Sargoth, Police Station
Ringus, District Sikar (Raj.)
...complainant/respondent
3. Santosh Devi Wife of Shri Shimbhu Dayal, by caste
Yadav, Resident of Sargoth, Police Station Ringus,
District Sikar (Raj.)
...Victim/ Respondents
Date of Order ::: 05.10.2016
Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq
Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri, counsel for accused-petitioner
Mr. A.D. Khan, Public Prosecutor, for the State
Mr. Om Prakash Kharra, counsel for complainant-respondent
####
By the Court:-
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by accused-petitioner challenging order dated 14.09.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reingas, District Sikar, in Criminal Case No.415/2012, whereby learned trial court declined to attest the compromise submitted on behalf of the complainant/victim-respondents on the ground that offence under Sections 452 and 354 IPC is not compoundable.
Learned counsel for the parties submitted that during trial both the parties have entered into compromise and the matter between the parties has been amicably settled. The complainant/victim-respondents have Crlmp4893/2016 // 2 // no grievance against accused-petitioner and now they do not want any action or proceedings against them in the present matter. Both the parties have moved compromise application before learned trial court but the trial court, vide impugned order declined to attest the same. Hence this petition.
Learned counsel for accused-petitioner has cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab - (2012) 10 SCC 303, and argued that the proceedings in the present case be quashed.
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 sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly Crlmp4893/2016 // 3 // 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.
Indisputably, in the present case the accused- petitioner and complainant/victim-respondents have amicably settled their disputes and arrived at compromise and filed the application to this effect and agreed to end the criminal proceedings in the case. Thus, there is no purpose to continue the criminal proceedings between the parties.
As per direction of this court dated 30.09.2016, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) recorded the statements of victim-respondent Santosh Devi as also complainant- respondent Shimbhu Dayal and both of them have stated that the parties have entered into a compromise and now they have no complaint against accused-petitioner and they do not want any action in the FIR No.350/2012.
In view of the law so succinctly laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above, and the fact that the parties have entered into compromise, there is no justification for allowing the proceedings in Crlmp4893/2016 // 4 // criminal case to continue.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.09.2016 is set aside. The parties are allowed to compound the offence. Consequently, the F.I.R. No.350/2012 registered at Police Station Reingas, District Sikar, for offence under Section 341, 323 and 354 IPC is quashed and entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.415/2012 - State of Rajasthan Vs. Geegraj @ Geegaram, pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reingas, District Sikar, are also quashed.
This also disposes of stay application.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//61