Umesh Daga vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

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

before the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur in Criminal Regular Case No.167/2017 (167/2016) arising out of FIR

No.534/2015, Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur for offence under Sections 420, 408, 120B IPC. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 26.06.2019

while partly allowing the application filed by the parties refused to compound the offence under Section 120-B IPC.

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

the basis of it, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B IPC. It is also argued that no

useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences 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 resolved their dispute amicably and

the respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under Sections 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 flavor 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 accused-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 before the court of Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur in Criminal Regular Case No.167/2017 (167/2016) are hereby quashed.