Ramniwas @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Anr

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against

him before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Degana, District Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular

Case No.173/2017 â€" State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramniwas (arising out of complaint No.166/2016 filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Degana, District Nagaur, whereby the trial court vide order dated 25.10.2017 has attested the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections

420, 418 and 406 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offence punishable under Sections 487, 468 and 471 IPC as the same are not

compoundable.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No.2 has filed a complaint No.166/2016 against the petitioner in the Court of Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Degana, District Nagaur. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offence under Sections

420, 418, 406, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Degana District Nagaur wherein the trial is pending against

the petitioner. 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 learned trial

court vide order dated 25.10.2017 allowed the parties to compound the offence under Sections 420, 418 and 406, however, rejected the application so

far as it relates to compounding the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him.

The 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 Sections 420, 418 and 406 I.P.C., there is no possibility of

conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served

by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. because the same may derail the

compromise arrived at between the parties.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and the respondent No.2 does not

want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under Section 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.

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 parties have already entered into compromise, there is no

possibility of petitioner being convicted in the case pending against him. When once the disputes have 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 for the offences punishable under

Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Degana, District Nagaur in Criminal Regular Case

No.173/2017â€" State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramniwas are hereby quashed.