Amjad Khan @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Rajasthan

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending him

before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No.558/2016

(arising out of FIR No.142/2016 of Police Station Mahila Thana, Udaipur) whereby, the trial court vide order dated 24.7.2018 has attested the

compromise for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC but refused to attest the same for the offence punishable underSection 498-A IPC as

the same is not compoundable.

Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, the Police Station

Mahila Thana, Distt. Udaipur has registered an FIR No.142/2016 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A

IPC.

After investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. in the

Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur wherein, the trial is pending against the petitioner. During the pendency of the trial, an

application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise

and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be terminated.

The learned trial court vide order dated 24.7.2018 allowed the parties to compound the offence under Section 406 I.P.C., however, rejected the

application so far as it relates to compounding the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise

and on the basis of it, the petitioner has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C., there is no possibility of conviction of the

petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against

the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and the respondent No.2 does not

want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C.

The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC â€" 426 has

held as below:-

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding

or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the

offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the

guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to

quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the

facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due

regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.

Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or

victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly,

any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences

committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such

offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing,

particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of

matrimony relating to dowry,

etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category

of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of

conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be

caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court

must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal

proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to

secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High

Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.â€​

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioner and respondent no.2 have already entered into

compromise, there is no possibility of petitioner being convicted in the case pending against him. When once the matrimonial disputes have been settled

by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending.

Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case,

wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.558/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC are hereby quashed.