Yunus Khan vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as ''the trial court'') in Criminal Original Case No. 95/2012, whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that in the instant case, the respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint in the trial court and the said complaint was forwarded to the Police Station, Mahila Than, District Jodhpur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the police has registered the FIR No. 01/2012 against the petitioner. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC in the trial court and the trial court took cognizance against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence.

During the pendeny of this criminal misc. petition, the parties have compromised the matter and arrived at amicable settlement and in pursuant to that, a joint application was moved on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 before the trial court for terminating the proceedings pending in Criminal Original Case No. 95/2012 against the petitioner. The trial court vide order dated 17.04.2012 has attested the compromise up to the extent of offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, however, refused to attest the compromise up to the extent of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC as the same is not compoundable.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute amicably and also decided to live separately and their marriage has also been dissolved under Muslim traditions. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 have moved a joint application for terminating the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner. However, the trial court has though attested the compromise up to the extent of offence punishable under Section 406 IPC but refused to attest the compromise up to the extent of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the fact that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement and have decided to live separately and the divorce decree has also been taken place there are no chances of conviction of the petitioner even if the trial is allowed to continue against him.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also conceded that the parties have already settled their dispute amicably and at present they are living separately after divorce and the respondent No. 2 has no objection if criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner are quashed.

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

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 particularly the fact that the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has already been settled by way of compromise and the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 has already been terminated and they are living separately, there is no chance of the conviction of the petitioner even if the trial against petitioner is allowed to be continued.

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 Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Original Case No. 95/2012 are hereby quashed.

Stay petition stands disposed of.