Subodh Baheti vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 213/2012 of Police Station Kotwali Bhilwara, District Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 441, 447, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.

During the pendency of this criminal misc. petition, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have entered into compromise and amicably resolved their dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, the civil suit filed by the respondent No. 2 for declaration of permanent injunction before the court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Bhilwara has also been decided vide order dated 28.1.2014 and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn.

Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was regarding a residential plot situated at Bhilwara and now the parties have settled their dispute and have agreed that the plot will remain with the petitioner, and the respondent No. 2 does not want to press the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR.

As per the impugned FIR, the respondent No. 2 has alleged that though the original owner of the disputed plot Smt. Dhapubai has sold the said plot to her through agreement to sell, but later on the petitioner has bought the plot and executed a registered sale deed for that. It is contended that the petitioner has committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 441, 447, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.

As per the respective counsel for the parties, the dispute regarding residential plot between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has already been settled and a copy of affidavit sworn in by the respondent No. 2 has also been placed on record.

After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the dispute regarding the residential plot between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has already been settled and a civil suit filed by the respondent No. 2 for declaration of permanent injunction has also been dismissed as withdrawn. Hence, there are no chances of conviction of the petitioner even if he is put to trial regarding the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2.

The Hon''ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 9 JT 457 : (2012) 9 JT 426 : (2012) 9 SCALE 257 : (2012) 10 SCC 303 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."

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably, it is a fit case where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised and criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner can be quashed.

Hence, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No. 213/2011 of Police Station Bhilwara Kotwali, District Bhilwara is quashed. The stay petition is disposed of.