Suman Devi @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

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

against them before the Judicial Magistrate First Class No.2, Udaipur City (Sourth), District Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in

Criminal Regular Case No.101/2013 (State Vs. Rajkumar Pamecha & Ors.) arising out of FIR No.226/2012 of Police Station Bhupalpura, District

Udaipur, whereby the trial court vide order dated 25.04.2018 has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but

refused to attest the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 and 120-B IPC as the same is not compoundable.

Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, the FIR No.226/2012 was registered at Police Station

Bhupalpura, District Udaipur against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The trial

court took cognizance and framed charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC

wherein the trial is pending against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.Â

During the pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent No.2 while stating that both the

parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioners may be terminated. The trial court vide order

dated 25.04.2018 allowed the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, however, rejected the application so far as it relates

to compounding the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.Â

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioners have already entered into compromise and

on the basis of it, the petitioners have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the

petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by

continuing the trial against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC 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 petitioners in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

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 petitioner and respondent no.2 have resolved their dispute,

there is no possibility of accusedpetitioneras being convicted in the case pending against them. 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 petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate First

Class No.2, Udaipur City (Sourth), District Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.101/2013 (State Vs. Rajkumar Pamecha & Ors.) arising out of FIR

No.226/2012 Of Police Station Bhupalpura, District Udaipur are hereby quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.