Sawai Singh & Ors @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

On the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent No.2, the petitioner No.1-Sawai Singh by way of this criminal misc.

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has prayed for quashing of the proceedings pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate, Chauhtan

(hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No.260/2017 (State Vs. Sawai Singh), whereas the petitioner No.2-Jograj

Singh and petitioner No.3-Ratan Singh have prayed for quashing of the proceedings initiated against them pursuant to the FIR No.61/2016 of Police

Station Chauhtan, District Barmer.Â

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 lodged the FIR No.61/2016 at Police Station Chauhtan, District Barmer against the petitioners.

The police, after thorough investigation, have filed charge-sheet against the petitioner No.1 before the court concerned, however, the investigation

against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The trial court took cognizance against the petitioner No.1-Sawai

Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120-B and 201 IPC and charges have also been framed against him for the aforesaid

offences.

During the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner No.1-Sawai Singh before the trial court in Criminal Regular Case No.260/2017,

an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent No.2 with a prayer for terminating the proceedings pending against

the petitioners on the ground that both the parties have entered into compromise.

The trial court vide order dated 09.06.2017 attested the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.2 for the offences

punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, however, the trial against the petitioner No.1 for the other offences is going on.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of the proceedings as stated hereinabove.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has claimed that since the compromise has arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent No.2, there is no

possibility that the trial pending against the petitioner No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 120-B and 201 IPC will result into his

conviction and there is also no possibility that the police will file charge-sheet against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in connection with FIR No.61/2016 of

Police Station Chauhtan, District Barmer. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against

the petitioners 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 he has specifically stated that the

respondent No.2 has no objection if the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners are dropped.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It is admitted that the dispute between the parties have already been settled and the respondent No.2 filed applications before the trial court with a

prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners.

Today also, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No.2 has no objection if the criminal proceedings

pending against the petitioners are dropped.Â

 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 petitioners and respondent No.2 have settled their dispute

amicably, there is no possibility of petitioner No.1 being convicted in Criminal Regular Case No.260/2017 pending against him and there is also no

possibility that the police will file charge-sheet against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in connection with the FIR No.61/2016 of Police Station Chauhtan,

District Barmer. 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 petitioners 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 No.1-Sawai Singh before the Judicial

Magistrate, Chauhtan in Criminal Regular Case No.260/2017 (State Vs. Sawai Singh) as well as the proceedings pending against the petitioner No.2-

Jograj Singh and petitioner No.3-Ratan Singh initiated pursuant to the FIR No.61/2016 of Police Station Chauhtan, District Barmer are hereby

quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.