Chaina Ram @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

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

against him before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (E.O.), Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case

No.30418/2014 (arising out of CR No.95/2011 of Police Station Ratanada, District Jodhpur), whereby the trial court vide order dated 05.05.2018 has

attested the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offence punishable

under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC as the same are not compoundable.

Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.2 before the trial court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the FIR

No.95/2011 was registered at Police Station Ratanada, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 and 120-B IPC

against the petitioner. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for aforesaid offences in the trial court wherein the trial is

pending against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 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 trial court vide order dated 05.05.2018 allowed the parties to compound the offences under Sections 420 and 406

IPC, however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC.Â

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

Petitioner, present in person, argue that as the complainantrespondent No.2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and on the basis

of it, the petitioner has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner

for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial

against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at

between the parties.

Respondent No.2, present in person, has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and he does not want to press the charges

levelled against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

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 settled their

dispute amicably, there is no possibility of accused-petitioner being convicted in the case pending against him. When once the 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 petitioners 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 (E.O.), Jodhpur Metro in Criminal Case No.30418/2014 (arising out of CR No.95/2011 of Police Station Ratanada, District Jodhpur) are

hereby quashed.Â