AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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 No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.297/2017
rising out of FIR No.34/2017 of Women Police Station, Udaipur, whereby the trial court vide order dated 13.07.2018 has attested the compromise for
the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC as the same
is not compoundable.
Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, the FIR No.34/2017 was registered at Women Police
Station, Udaipur against the petitioner. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 406
and 498-A 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 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 13.07.2018 allowed the parties to
compound the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the offence punishable
under Section 498-A IPC.Â
The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and
on the basis of it, the petitioner has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have decided
to live together happily by mutual consent. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the
offence punishable punishable under Section 498-A 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 together happily and
the respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offence punishable punishable under Section 498-A
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 settled their
matrimonial dispute amicably and decided to live together by mutual consent, there is no possibility of accusedpetitioner being convicted in the case
pending against him. When once the matrimonial disputes has 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 Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Case No.297/2017 arising out of FIR No.34/2017 of Women Police Station, Udaipur are hereby quashed.