Back
2013 Supreme(Raj) 409
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Jaipur Bench
Minakshi Patrick & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (Sharma, J.)
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Minakshi Patrick & Ors.
Versus
State of Raj. & Ors.
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2576 of 2013, decided on 04.12.2013
Anurag Sharma, for Petitioners;
Peeyush Kumar, PP, for State;
Anurag Kulshreshtha, for Complainant
Headnote:Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 482 and 320(2); Penal Code, Secs. 467, 468, 471, 120-B — Quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise in offence of non-compoundable nature — Held — In view of principles enunciated by Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (2012) 10 SCC 303), proceedings quashed and set aside as continuance thereof could turn out to be an exercise in futility without anything positive being ultimately achieved. (Paras 17, 18)
Petition allowed.
na-iz-la-] 1973] /kkjk 482 ,oa 320 ¼2½( n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 467] 468] 471] 120-[k & v'keuh; izd`fr ds vijk/k esa jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij QkStnkjh dk;Zokgh vfHk[kf.Mr djuk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Kkuflag ds ekeys ¼2012½ 10 ,l lh lh 303½izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa dh n`f"V ls dk;Zokgh vfHk[kf.Mr ,oa vikLr dh D;ksafd mls tkjh j[kus ls vUr% fcuk fdlh ldkjkRed ifj.kke gkfly fd;s mldh ifj.kfr ,d fujFkZd dk;Zokgh esa lekIr gks ldrh gSA ¼in la[;k 17] 18½
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This criminal misc petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings in view of the compromise between the accused petitioners and the complainants in criminal case No. 529/2010, State vs. Manoj and others pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (S.D. No. 9 Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120 B IPC.
2. It may be mentioned that earlier Manoj Singh and Surendra Patrik (who are accused petitioners 3 and 2 in the present misc. petition) filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1645 of 2012 against the order dated 18.5.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 9 Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur in criminal case No. 529 of 2010 for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 381 and 120B IPC whereby the court attested the compromise for offence under sections 420 and 381 IPC but declined to attest the compromise for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. This court vide order dated 19.5.2012 after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, public prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant rejected the criminal misc. petition, observing as under:
"I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the order dated 18.5.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 9 Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur, in criminal case No. 529 of 2010 for the offence under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 471, 381 and 120B IPC whereby the court attested the compromise for offence under Secs. 420 and 381 IPC but declined to attest the compromise for the offence under Secs. 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The order passed by the ACJM is just and proper. The criminal misc. petition is rejected. The stay application also stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of two months, if possible."
3. On 18th July, 2013, the accused petitioners Minakshi Patrick, Surendra Patrick, Manoj Singh Chauhan, Pramod Singh Chauhan and Victor Khan, accused petitioners, have filed this criminal misc. petition for quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise between the accused petitioners and the complainants, who have also been arrayed as non-petitioners 2 and 3.
4. This criminal misc. petition was listed before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 25.7.2013. On 25.7.2013 following order was passed:
"In view of the order dated 19.5.2012 passed by Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1645/2012 between the same parties, list before Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J."
5. As per the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this case was listed before this Court on 30.7.2013, 6.8.2013, 14.8.2013, 22.8.2013, 30.8.2013, 2.9.2013, 30.9.2013, 3.10. 2013, 21.10.2013, 11.11.2013 and on 13.11.2013.
6. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that pending trial, the petitioners and the complainants resolved trial, the petitioners and the complainants resolved all their disputes and the entire amount was repaid to the respondent No. 2, de-facto complainant and the partner of M/s. Dev Giri Exports. It is further argued that with the settlement between the parties now no dispute has remained to be resolved and the parties are maintaining cordial relations and they do not wish to contest the matter any further. The learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners placed reliance on the Apex Court ruling in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303 = 2013(4) RLW 3573 (SC) (Three Judge Bench judgment).
7. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Anurag Kulshreshta, learned counsel appearing for the complainants 2 and 3 do not dispute the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners and as per the ruling of the Apex Court cited by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the ruling
