Virendra Singh @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 No.2 North, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.367/2012 (arising

out of FIR No.197/2012 of Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur), whereby the trial court vide order dated 29.06.2018 has attested the compromise

for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC as the

same is not compoundable.

In the instant case the respondent No.2 filed a complaint in the trial court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same was forwarded to the Police

Station Sukher, District Udaipur, whereof the FIR No.197/2012 was registered against the petitioners. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet

against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the

petitioners for the aforesaid offences. During the pendency of the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of 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 29.06.2018 allowed the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, however, rejected the application so far

as it relates to compounding the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.Â

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

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 406 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the

petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 and

the respondent No.2 have decided to live separately by mutual consent and in this regard an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 has already been decided by District Judge, Udaipur and dissolved the marriage of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 vide its order

dated 02.04.2016. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A IPC 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 the petitioner No.1 and the

respondent No.2 have decided to live separately and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioners in relation

to the offence punishable under Section 498-A 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 No.1 and respondent No.2 have decided to live

separately and in pursuance of that the District Judge, Udaipur vide order dated 02.04.2017 has dissolved their marriage, there is no possibility of

accused-petitioners being convicted in the case pending against them. When once the matrimonial 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 No.2

North, Udaipur in Criminal Case No.367/2012 (arising out of FIR No.197/2012 of Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur) are hereby quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.