Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Hanuman Prasad And Ors vs State on 5 August, 2011
SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.2218/2009 Hanuman Prasad & others Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order 5.8.2011 HON'BLE DR. MEENA V. GOMBER, J.
Mr. Anoop Dhand for complaint petitioner None present for accused petitioners Mr. Piyush Kumar, for the State This criminal misc. Petition had been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., jointly by the accused persons and the complainant against the order dated 1.6.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh (Sikar) in Criminal Case No.501/2007, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for attestation of compromise and dropping of proceedings of the criminal case for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, had been rejected.
Perused the impugned order.
Vide order dated 1.6.2009 the learned trial court attested the compromise for offence under Section 420 IPC but the rest of the offences being non compoundable, the prayer was dismissed. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that when the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of court, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter alive for trial.
On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor contends that the offences being non compoundable, the trial court rightly rejected the application and, therefore, the order of the trial court does not warrant any interference by this court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the matter of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, stating that the dispute between the parties was of personal nature and when the dispute where the question involved is purely of personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings since keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution, is a luxury which the courts grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. The Apex Court in para 6 of the judgment held that this is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.
In a later judgment in the case of Manoj Sharma v. State & others, (2008) 16 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of proceedings of an FIR under Sections 420, 468, 471, 34, 120B IPC, held that except Section 420 IPC, which could be compounded with the permission of the court, other offences under Sections 468, 471, 34 and 120B IPC, mentioned in FIR, could not even be compounded with the permission of the court and that High Court or even Supreme Court would not ordinarily be justified in doing something indirectly which could not be done directly. But the Apex Court in para 23 of the judgment, observed that however, Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be read in isolation, but has to be read along with the other provisions in Cr.P.C., and one such other provision, as per the Apex Court is Section 482 Cr.P.C. Para 23 of the judgment reads as under:-
However, it has to be pointed out that Section 320 Cr.PC cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read along with the other provisions in CrPC. One such other provision is Section 482 CrPC which reads:
482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
The words Nothing in this Code used in Section 482 is a non obstante clause, and gives it overriding effect over other provisions in CrPC. The words or otherwise to secure the ends of justice in Section 482 implies that to secure the interest of justice sometimes (though only in very rare cases) the High Court can pass an order in violation of a provisions in CrPC.
Although in this case, while interpreting Section 320 along with Section 482 Cr.P.C., having a non obstante clause, the Apex Court observed that this matter should be determined elaborately by a larger Bench in some later case.
In view of the Apex Court's pronouncement in the matter of Manoj Sharma v. State & others (supra), I am of the considered view that although Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC are not compoundable even with the permission of the court, but in view of the pronouncement discussed herein above and the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., I am of the considered view that when the parties have arrived at a compromise out of court, keeping the matter alive with no possibility of result in favour of the prosecution, will serve no purpose.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the FIR for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC is quashed in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and the petitioners are acquitted of these charges.
Revision Petition and the stay application stand disposed.
(Dr. Meena V. Gomber) J.
db [All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.] Deepankar Bhattacharya P