Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajender Kumar @ Raj vs State Of Rajasthan (2023/Rjjd/009354) on 10 April, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023/RJJD/009354]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1186/2023
1. Rajender Kumar @ Raj S/o Sh. Dharma Ram, Aged About
36 Years, R/o E-32 Rameshwar Nagar Basani Jodhpur
2. Dharma Ram S/o Kisanaram, Aged About 67 Years, R/o
E-32 Rameshwar Nagar Basani Jodhpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Neetu W/o Rajender Kumar Prajapat @ Raaj D/o Achalu
Ram Ji, B/c Kumhar R/o At Present R/o E-32 Rameshwar
Nagar Basani Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Gehlot, PP
Mr. V.D. Vaishnav on behalf of
Mr. Haider Agha
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order 10/04/2023 The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the learned P.C.P.N.D.T Act Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur and quashing the criminal chargesheet arising out of FIR No.96/2017 lodged at Police Station Mahila Thana West, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur whereby the learned Judge while granting permission for compounding the offence under Section 406 IPC and declined to compound the offence under Sections 498-A, 377 and 354-A IPC on the basis of compromise between the parties. (Downloaded on 11/04/2023 at 12:29:15 AM) [2023/RJJD/009354] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-1186/2023] Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant jointly submit that the petitioners and the complainant have entered into compromise in the ongoing criminal proceedings. It is thus submitted that the parties are not inclined to proceed further in the matter.
This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2021 decided on 30.07.2021, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-
"3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter alia, that the Appellant had committed an offence Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed that both the Accused (Appellant) and Respondent No. 2 were living together for a considerable while. The complainant's allegation is that the Appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that he is divorced. The complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.
4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a child was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year 2018). As a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them.
5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant - who does not dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution further, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings must be quashed.
6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set (Downloaded on 11/04/2023 at 12:29:15 AM) [2023/RJJD/009354] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-1186/2023] aside; the FIR (No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not come in the way or in any manner prejudice the contentions of the parties in any other pending proceedings, which shall 20-09-2022 be decided in accordance with law.
7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the following order for consideration passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.4119/2021 decided on 06.04.2022 (Dhabba Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), which reads as follows:-
"1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.94/2021 registered at Police Station Gida, District Barmer for the offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the I.T. Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of investigation, the petitioner and the complainant have entered into a compromise and thus, no dispute remains pending between them and the complainant does not wish to continue with the present litigation.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the compromise in question has been produced before the Investigating Officer, who has verified the factum of compromise and the same has been executed without any force or coercion.
4. Learned counsel submits that the complaint in question came be to be lodged by the complainant on account of an audio of the conversation between the petitioner and complainant getting viral and now the (Downloaded on 11/04/2023 at 12:29:15 AM) [2023/RJJD/009354] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-1186/2023] parties have decided to resolve the dispute having regard to the fact that the petitioner and complainant are close relatives.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant also accepts the fact of the compromise and submits that even the husband of the prosecutrix/complainant has signed the compromise.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering that the complainant is aunt (Mami) of the present petitioner and also considering that the FIR in question was lodged under social pressure and also finding that the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by the Larger Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr-reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604], the aforesaid FIR is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.
7. In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.94/2021 registered at Police Station Gida, District Barmer is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.
8. The stay application also stands disposed of."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, a copy of compromise deed is filed along with the petition.
Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303].
In view of compromise arrived at between the parties and applying the ratio of the decision in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra); Dhabba Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan (Downloaded on 11/04/2023 at 12:29:15 AM) [2023/RJJD/009354] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-1186/2023] & Anr. (supra) & Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the court below is quashed to the extent of declining to compound the offence under Sections 498-A, 377 and 354-A IPC and the offence under Sections 498-A, 377 and 354-A IPC is hereby compounded on the basis of compromise deed and the entire criminal proceedings pursuant to Criminal Case No.46/2018 (arising out of FIR No.96/2017 lodged at Police Station Mahila Thana West Jodhpur, District Jodhpur) and subsequent proceedings are also quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 86-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 11/04/2023 at 12:29:15 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)