Anupam Garg @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings pending against him before the

Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.05/2014, whereby the trial court while observing

that there is no provision in Cr.P.C. to drop the proceedings vide order dated 06.06.2018 has refused to attest the compromise for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 406 & 498-A I.P.C.

Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, the FIR No.168/2013 was registered at Police Station,

Mahila, District Hanumangarh against the petitioner. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, 323 and 406 IPC in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence.

During the pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the respondent No.2 while stating that both the parties have entered into

compromise and decided to live separately by mutual consent and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner for the offences punishable

under Sections 406 and 323 I.P.C. may be quashed so also the proceeding pending against the petitioner under Section 498-A I.P.C. may be

dropped. The trial court vide order dated 06.06.2018 has rejected the said application while observing that there is no provision in Cr.P.C. to drop

the proceedings.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the said proceedings pending against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and they have

decided to live separately, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 406 IPC.

It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a joint application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is already filed

by the petitioner and the respondent No.2, which is pending adjudication before the Family Court, Hanumangarh.

It is also argued that since the dispute between the parties has been settled and they are living separately and the respondent No.2 does not want to

continue the proceedings against the petitioner no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 406 IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and decided to live separately and the

respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and

406 IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It is now admitted that the matrimonial dispute between the parties has already been settled and the respondent No.2 filed an application before the

trial court with a prayer for quashing of the prosecution against the petitioner.

Today also learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to continue the proceedings

pending against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 406 IPC as the matrimonial dispute has already been

resolved between the parties and the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are living separately. A certified copy of compromise is placed on record.

 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) SCâ€"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 settled their dispute

and they have decided to live separately by mutual consent and in pursuance of that appropriate proceedings are also pending before the Family Court,

Hanumangarh, there is no possibility of accused-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 Judicial Magistrate,

Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.05/2014 are hereby quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.