Prakash @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Rajasthan

This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing of the FIR No.135/2018 dated

15.9.2018 of Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Jodhpur City (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 454 and 34 IPC.

In the instant case, the respondent No.2 has lodged FIR against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. It is submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the respondent No.2 and the petitioner have compromised the matter and resolved the dispute between them amicably. Learned counsel

for the petitioner has argued that since the dispute has already been amicably settled between the parties the FIR No.135/2018 dated 15.9.2018 of

Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Jodhpur City (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 454 and 34 IPC 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 the petitioner has already been settled.

Pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 1.10.2018, compromise entered into between the parties has been verified by the Investigating

Officer, who is investigating into the allegations levelled in the FIR No.135/2018 dated 15.9.2018 of Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Jodhpur

City (West) and the factual report dated 6.10.2018 of this effect has been submitted by learned Public Prosecutor.

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. It is admitted that the

dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably and the same has been verified by the Investigating Officer. Today also, learned

counsel for the respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the FIR

No.135/2018 dated 15.9.2018 of Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Jodhpur City (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307,

454 and 34 IPC 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 & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SCâ€"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 dispute between the parties has already been settled

amicably and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in FIR No.135/2018 dated 15.9.2018 of Police Station Rajiv Gandhi

Nagar, Distt. Jodhpur City (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 454 and 34 IPC, it is a fit case wherein the FIR pending

against the petitioner 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.135/2018 dated 15.9.2018 of Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Jodhpur City (West) for the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 454 and 34 IPC against the petitioner is hereby quashed. Stay petition is disposed of. The factual report

dated 6.10.2018 be taken on record.