Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mohammad Salim vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 6 September, 2016
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
Crlmp2802/2016
// 1 //
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
ORDER
IN
S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.2802/2016
(With Stay Appl. No.2871/2016)
Mohammad Salim Son of late Shri
Mohammad Shakil, aged about 29 years,
by caste Musalman, Resident of 21,
Rang Talab, Loko Colony, Police
Station Railway Colony, Kota (Raj.)
...Accused-petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through
Public Prosecutor
...Respondent
2. Balkishan Nagar Son of late Shri
Chotelal Ji, aged 59 years, by caste
Dhakad, resident of Seeswali, Police
Station Seeswali, District Baran
(Raj.) at present Manager M/s Surya
Chambal Power Limited Gram Rangpur,
Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota
...complainant-respondent
Date of Order ::: 06.09.2016
Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq
Mr. Sudarshan Laddha, counsel for accused-petitioner
Mr. R.R. Baisla, Public Prosecutor, for the State
Ms. Rekha Arora, counsel for complainant-respondent
####
By the Court:-
This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused- petitioner for modification in order dated 02.04.2016 (Annexure-5) passed by the court of Special Judicial Magistrate (P.C.P.N.D.T. Act) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kota, in Case No.258/2016 titled State Vs. Mohammad Salim, arising out of F.I.R. No.111/2009 registered at Police Station Railway Colony, Kota City, and that the accused-petitioner be ordered to be discharged from the alleged offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
Crlmp2802/2016
// 2 // Mr. Sudarshan Laddha, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the said F.I.R. No.111/2009 was lodged at Police Station Railway Colony, Kota City, in which challan was filed and thereafter charges were framed for the offence under Sections 408, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. It is stated that the F.I.R. was filed by complainant Balkishan Nagar, who is presently working as Manager in M/s Surya Chambal Power Limited, Village Rangpur, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota, under his signature and now he has compromised the dispute. During the course of trial, accused-petitioner and complainant-respondent amicably settled their disputes in the spirit of 'lok adalat' and arrived at compromise and now there is no dispute between them. An application dated 02.04.2016 to this effect was filed before the trial court by the complainant-respondent along-with affidavit dated 02.04.2016 and compromise deed dated 02.04.2016 with prayer to attest the compromise. The trial court, vide order dated 02.04.2016, attested the compromise only to the extent of Section 408 IPC and kept the matter pending trial for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC and ordered to call the prosecution evidence for further proceeding. 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 Crlmp2802/2016 // 3 // 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 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 Crlmp2802/2016 // 4 // 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- petitioner and complainant-respondent amicably settled their disputes and arrived at compromise and executed compromise-deed 02.04.2016 and agreed to end the criminal proceedings in the case. Thus, there is no purpose to continue the criminal proceedings between the parties. Though, the learned trial court, vide order dated 02.04.2016 attested the compromise only to the extent of Section 408 IPC and kept the matter pending trial for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC and ordered to call the prosecution evidence for further proceeding.
In view of the law so succinctly laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above, despite the fact that offences under Section 467, 468 and 471 IPC are not compoundable, in the facts of the case when the parties have entered into compromise and Crlmp2802/2016 // 5 // filed a joint application before the court and when the offence under Section 408 IPC has already been compounded, there is no justification for allowing the proceedings in criminal case to continue.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No.258/2016 titled State Vs. Mohammad Salim, arising out of F.I.R. No.111/2009, registered at Police Station Railway Colony, Kota City, are quashed and set aside and the accused-petitioner is discharged from the alleged offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Consequently, the F.I.R. No.111/2009, Police Station Railway Colony, Kota City, is quashed. The impugned order dated 02.04.2016 is accordingly modified.
This also disposes of stay application.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//39