Shiv Kumar Kasara @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the order dated 03.01.2018 passed

by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the revisional court’) in Revision Petition No.81/2013 (CIS

No.633/2014), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The said revision petition was filed by the petitioners being

aggrieved with the order dated 18.02.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Reference No.54/2015 (FR No.38/2011 arising out of FIR

No.129/2011 of Police Station Surajpole, District Udaipur), whereby the trial court ordered for taking cognizance against the petitioners for the

offences punishable under Sections 467, 471, 380 and 120-B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as a matter of fact the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.2 is regarding

some business transaction, however, the said dispute has already been settled and, therefore, it is prayed that the criminal proceedings pending against

the petitioner before the trial court be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.Â

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has verified the fact of compromise and submitted that since the dispute between the respondent No.2 and

the petitioners has amicably been settled, the respondent No.2 has no objection if the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the

trial court are terminated. An application of this effect is also filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, which is available on record.

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

It appears that on a complaint filed by the respondent No.2 the FIR No.129/2011 was registered at Police Station Surajpole, District Udaipur against

the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 381, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The police, after thorough investigation, have filed

negative final report before the trial court. Being aggrieved with the negative final report, the respondent No.2 preferred a protest petition before the

trial court. The trial court vide order dated 18.02.2013 allowed the said protest petition and ordered for taking cognizance against the petitioners for the

offences punishable under Sections 467, 471, 380 and 120-B IPC. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have preferred a revision petition

before the revisional court.

During the pendency of the aforesaid revision petition, the petitioners and the respondent No.2 have informed the revisional court that the matter has

already been compromised between them and a specific statement has been given by the respondent No.2 that he does not want to continue the

criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The revisional court, though, noticed the said fact, has not passed any order on it and has proceeded to

dismiss the revision petition filed by the petitioners and confirmed the order dated 18.02.2013 passed by the trial court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have also submitted that the proceedings under Section 138

Negotiable Instrument Act and the civil suit pending between the petitioners and the respondent No.2 have already been came to an end on the basis

of compromise arrived at between them. The relevant documents of this effect are produced on record.

From the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the material

placed on record, it appears that there was some dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.2 in relation to some business transaction.

Now the said dispute between the petitioners and the respondents has amicably been settled and all the pending proceedings such as complaint under

Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act and the civil suit have came to an end on the basis of compromise arrived at 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 petitioners and the respondent No.2

have already been settled amicably and the respondent No.2 has no objection if the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner is terminated

and an application of this effect is also filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, which is available on record, 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.

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 proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Reference No.54/2015 (FR No.38/2011 arising out of

FIR No.129/2011 of Police Station Surajpole, District Udaipur) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur are hereby quashed.

Accordingly, the application filed by the respondent No.2 for disposal of this misc. petition in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties is

disposed of.

Stay petition also stands disposed of.