Jaiveer Sharma @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.1191/2015 registered at Police Station Vishali Nagar, Jaipur, for

offences under Sections 419, 420, 406 and 120-b IPC along with all subsequent proceedings.

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that vide application(Annx.2) a joint application was filed by the complainant and the petitioners before the

trial court for composition of the offences.

Counsel for the petitioners has contended that vide order dated 18.04.2017 the trial court compounded offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC

between the petitioners and the complainant.

Order dated 18.04.2017 passed by the trial court for ready reference has reproduced below:-

“lgk;d yksd vfHk;kstd mifLFkrA

vfHk;qDr ;ksxs’k tslh ls mifLFkrA vfHk;qDr t;ohj

'kekZ o dfj’ek dstjhoky o vk’kqrks""k e; vf/koDrk mifLFkrA xokg ih0MCyw&2 xksfoUnukjk;.k mifLFkr ftlds c;ku iwjs gq,A

 ifjoknh xksfoUnukjk;.k o vfHk;qDr dfj’ek dstjhoky o t;ohj 'kekZ dh vksj ls /kkjk 420] 406 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk 1860 ds vijk/k esa jkthukek djus

nsus dk izkFkZuk i= is’k gqvkA ifjoknh dh igpku vf/koDrk Jh :isUnz o vfHk;qDr dfjâ€ek dh igpku :isUnz iqjksfgr vf/koDrk rFkk vfHk;qDr t;ohj

'kekZ dh igpku fo}ku vf/koDrk MkW0 egsâ€k frokMh us dh] izkFkZuk i= ij lquk x;kA pwafd i{kdkjku us fcuk fdlh Hk;] Ny] mRizsj.k] vlE;d] vlj] diV

esa viuh Lora=rk o lgefr ls jkthukek djuk tkfgj fd;k] ftl ij i{kdkjku ds e/; /kkjk 420] 406 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk 1860 esa jkthukek ckn tkap rLnhd fd;k tkrk

gS] vfHk;qDr dfj’ek dstjhoky o t;ohj 'kekZ dks vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 420] 406 Hkk0na0la0 esa c:, jkthukek nks""keqDr ?kksf""kr fd;k tkrk gSaA

vfHk;qDr dfj’ek o t;ohj 'kekZ ds fo:) /kkjk 120ch Hkk0na0la0 dk vijk/k 'ks""k gSaA i=koyh okLrs lk{; vfHk;kstu gsrq fnukad 01-5-17 dks isâ€k

gksA â€​

Counsel for the petitioners has contended that now petitioners are only to be tried for offence under Section 120-B IPC which is non-cognizable

offence.

Counsel for the petitioners has further contended that even though Section 120-B IPC is a substantive offence, in view of the composition of the

principal offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC continuation of the trial shall serve no useful purpose.

Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the order dated 04.07.2017 passed by co-ordinate Bench in case of coaccused. Order dated

04.07.2017 passed by the co-ordinate Bench reads as under:-

“Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing of F.I.R. No. 1191/2015 registered at Police

Station Vaishali Nagar, District Jaipur (South), under Section 420, 406, 120-B, 419 Indian Penal Code 1860 and subsequent proceedings arising thereof

qua the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have amicably settled their money dispute. Compromise in question was presented

before the trial court by the parties. Petitioner was discharged from the offence under Section 420, 406 IPC on the basis of compromise. However,

the trial court proceeded with the case against the petitioner under Section 120-BIPC vide order dated 13.4.2017 (Annexure-2).

In (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:-

“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€​

Since, the parties have amicably settled their dispute, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

Accordingly, in view of compromise effected between the parties, this petition is allowed. F.I.R. No. 1191/2015 registered at Police Station Vaishali

Nagar, District Jaipur (South), under Section 420, 406, 120-B, 419 Indian Penal Code 1860 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the

petitioner are quashed.â€​

Considering that principal offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC have been compounded by the trial court, petitioners are only to be tried for

offence under Section 120-B IPC, taking into account along with order dated 04.07.2017 passed by the coordinate Bench,the present petition is

allowed on the ground of parity and impugned order dated 18.04.2017 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (Raj.),

along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed.