Govind Ram @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.36/2014 of Police Station

Bichhwal, District Bikaner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B of IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at

between the petitioners and the complainant. The respondent No.2 who has filed the FIR is the power of attorney holder of ten persons.

The allegations levelled against the petitioners in the impugned FIR are to the effect that they have sold the land belonging to ten persons by

impersonating one Jawahara Ram.

It is alleged in the impugned FIR that the petitioner by impersonating an unknown person as Jawahara Ram got the power of attorney of him executed

in favour of the petitioner No.1-Govind Ram and on the basis of said power of attorney, the petitioners have sold the land belonging to the legal heirs

of the Jawahara Ram through a sale deed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer. In

the meantime, the petitioners and the complainant party have entered into a compromise, in which, the petitioners have paid full amount of the land to

the legal heirs of deceased Jawahara Ram and the dispute has amicably been settled.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has therefore prayed that since the dispute between the petitioners and the complainant is regarding the amount of

the land and the same has now been paid and the legal heirs of the Jawahara Ram they do not want to press the allegations levelled against the

petitioners and as there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners after trial, this impugned FIR may be set aside and the criminal proceedings

launched against the petitioners be terminated.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, who is the power of attorney holder of the legal heirs of Jawahara Ram has also submitted the

principal dispute between the petitioners and the legal heirs of Jawahara Ram was regarding the amount of the land which has now been paid by the

petitioners and, therefore, the legal heirs of Jawahara Ram are not interested in pressing the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR. It is also

submitted on behalf of the respondent No.2 that if the impugned FIR is set aside, the legal heirs of Jawahara Ram have no objection.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioners and has submitted that earlier also the petitioners had preferred S.B.

Criminal Misc. Petition No.2515/2014 challenging the impugned FIR, however, this Court vide detail order dated 02.12.2016 has rejected the above

referred criminal misc. petition while observing that the impugned FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners

and the investigation carried out so far proves the involvement of the petitioners and other persons in the crime and, therefore, no case is made out to

quash the impugned FIR.

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that once this Court has already rejected the prayer of the petitioners for quashing the impugned FIR, this

second criminal misc petition with similar prayer is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, even though the parties have entered into a

compromise.

Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the Investigating Agency has found a prima facie case proved against the petitioners and other

accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It is true that earlier criminal misc. petition No.2515/2014 filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR had been dismissed vide

order dated 02.12.2016 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court with an observation that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR prima facie

discloses the commission of cognizable offences and the investigation carried out so far proves involvement of the petitioners and other persons in the

crime, however, now the legal heirs of the Jawahara Ram are not interested in pressing the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR on account of the

compromise arrived at between them and looking to this situation, there is no possibility that the principal witnesses will support the prosecution if the

petitioners are tried by the competent court.

It is to be noticed that the principal dispute between the petitioners and the complainant is regarding the payment of money in respect of the land and

as per the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the same has already been paid by the respondents to the legal heirs of Jawahara Ram, hence,

whatever, the dispute was between the parties, it has already been amicably settled.

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 petitioners and respondent no.2 have already entered into

compromise, there is no possibility of petitioners being convicted in the case pending against them.

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.

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 FIR No.36/2014 of Police Station Bichhwal, District Bikaner for the offences punishable under Sections

420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B IPC is hereby quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.