Chanda vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 399/2012 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur City (North), District Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ''the trial court'') arising out of FIR No. 279/2012 dated 18.05.2012 of Police Station, Hiran Magri, District Udaipur may kindly be quashed and set aside.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 before the trial court, the same was forwarded to the Police Station, Hiran Magri, District Udaipur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on 18.05.2012 the police has registered the FIR No. 279/2012 against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 498-A, 109 and 323 IPC. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the course of investigation, compromise was arrived at between the respondent No. 2 and petitioner and other co-accused persons and when the investigating agency has not considered the same, the other co-accused persons approached this Court. On the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court on 20.07.2012 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1645/2012 quash the FIR No. 279/2012 of Police Station, Hiran Magri, District Udaipur for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 498-A IPC against the co-accused persons who approached this Court. However, the trial court has dropped the proceedings against other co-accused persons but the proceedings against the petitioner are continued.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the dispute has already been amicably settled between the parties the proceedings pending against the petitioner may kindly be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has conceded that the dispute between the respondent No. 2 and petitioner has already been settled and the respondent No. 2 does not want to prosecute the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the dispute between the parties have already been settled.

Today also learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No. 2 does not want to continue the proceedings against the petitioner as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties.

The Hon''ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , 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."

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the dispute between the parties have already been settled and the respondent No. 2 does not want to continue the proceedings against the petitioner, it is a fit case wherein the proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh''s case (supra) and in the facts and circumstances as noted above this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 399/2012 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur City (North), District Udaipur arising out of FIR No. 279/2012 dated 18.05.2012 of Police Station, Hiran Magri, District Udaipur are hereby quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.