Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Satyabhan Singh And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 September, 2016
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.3558/2016
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. STAY APPL. NO.3685/2016
1. Satyabhan Singh son of late Shri Baldevram,
resident of house No. 203-A, AWHO, Ambabari,
Jaipur.
2. Smit Janki Singh wife of Shri Satyabhan Singh,
resident of house No. 203-A, AWHO, Ambabari,
Jaipur.
3. Savita Singh daughter of Shri Satyabhan Singh
resident of house No. 203-A, AWHO, Ambabari,
Jaipur. Presently resident of Punch, Rajori, J & K.
4. Sunita Singh daughter of Shri Satyabhan Singh
resident of house No. 203-A, AWHO, Ambabari,
Jaipur. Presently resident of Sanfrancisco, USA.
5. Sangeeta Singh daughter of Shri Satyabhan Singh
resident of house No. 203-A, AWHO, Ambabari,
Jaipur. Presently resident of Sanfrancisco, USA.
6. Archana Rao daughter of Shir Umrao Singh, by-caste
Jat, resident of Ghadana District Jhalawar.
7. Umrao Singh son of Shri Sardar Ram, by-caste Jat,
resident of Ghdana District Jhalawar.
....Accused/Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the PP.
....Non-Petitioner
2. Smt. Rakhi Sirohi daughter of Shri Bharat Singh
Sirohi, resident of Showroom No.23-24, Vidhyut
Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
...Complainant/Non-Petitioner
DATE OF ORDER : : 17th September, 2016
2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
*******
Shri Harendra Singh Sinsinwar for the petitioners.
Shri R.R. Baisla, P.P. for the State.
Shri Sudhir Jain for the complainant.
Smt. Rakhi Sirohi, complainant present in person.
## This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused-petitioners for quashment of proceedings in Criminal Case No.684/2010 for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 495, 323, 417, 420, 500 and 120B IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
It is contended that the complainant and accused- petitioners belong to one family. Her husband Sunil Singh had already been expired. Petitioner nos.1 and 2 are her father-in-law and mother-in-law, petitioner nos.3 to 5 are her nanad, petitioner no.6 is maternal uncle's daughters and petitioner no.7 is the maternal uncle. The parties have compromised all the disputes and decided to live peacefully and happily. They, therefore, filed a compromise in the Court on 6.7.2016 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan stating that they do not want to pursue the case and want to settle their dispute as per the spirit of Lok Adalat. The complainant has specifically mentioned that 3 she does not want to continue the case against any of the accused. Both the parties were identified by their Advocates. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 6.7.2016 attested the compromise with regard to the offences under Section 406, 323, 417, 420 and 500 IPC only so far as it relates to petitioner nos.1 and 2 and did not attest the compromise for offence under Section 498A read with Section 120B of IPC. So far as accused- petitioner nos.3 to 7 are concerned, compromise has not been attested against them for any of the offence.
Learned counsel for accused-petitioners has cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab - (2012) 10 SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another - (2003) 4 SCC 675 in support of his arguments.
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 4 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 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 5 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.
The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another - (2003) 4 SCC 675, considered the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings and held that High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 320 of the IPC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Indisputably, in the present case the accused- petitioners and complainant-respondent have amicably settled their disputes and arrived at compromise and the parties filed a compromise in the Court on 6.7.2016 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan stating that they do not want to pursue the case and they have been identified by their respective counsels. When the whole matter has been compounded 6 between the parties, there is no purpose to continue the criminal proceedings between them. Therefore, there is no purpose to continue the criminal proceedings between the parties.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The proceedings in Sessions Case No.684/2010, State vs. Savita Singh & Ors. pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan are dropped and quashed & set-aside.
This also disposes of stay application.
(Mohammad Rafiq),J.
RS/48