Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2551
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Ratan Meena And Another - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Raj. And Others - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1006 of 2019
Decided On : 12-02-2019
Petitioners are present in person, for the Appellants; Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are present in person, for the Respondents
The court has the power to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice, especially when there is a compromise between the parties and the dispute has been amicably resolved.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - COMPROMISE BETWEEN PARTIES - OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 143 AND 452 IPC - COURT'S POWER TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings arising from an FIR for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, and 452 IPC. The trial court accepted the compromise for offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC but rejected it for offences under Sections 143 and 452 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that simple injuries were caused in the occurrence and the trial court had already acquitted the petitioners of offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC. The court also considered the parties' reliance on the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which held that the court can quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to advance the interest of justice.
Issues: Whether the court can quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compromise between the parties was a positive development and that the court should grant due sanctity to the amicable resolution of the dispute. The court also considered the ratio of law laid down in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and concluded that it was appropriate to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.
Final Decision: The court accepted the petition and quashed the impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of FIR No. 239/2013 registered at Police Station Nahargarh, Jaipur (North) for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 452 IPC.
2. Petitioners Ratan Meena and Jatan Meena @ Rohit Meena and complainants Gopal Singh Meena and Manish Meena are present in person. They have stated that after the charge-sheet was filed, the trial is in progress. They have drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 4.2.2019 passed by the trial court, whereby the compromise was accepted qua offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC as the said offences are compoundable but rejected the same qua offences under Sections 143 and 452 IPC. The order dated 4.2.2019 passed by the trial court reads as under:-
^^fnukad% 04-02-2019
fo}ku lgk;d vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh mifLFkrA
vfHk;qDrx.k jru eh.kk o tru eh.kk mQZ jksfgr eh.kk e; vf/koDrk mifLFkrA ifjoknh xksiky flag eh.kk o et:c euh"k dqekj eh.kk e; vf/koDrk mifLFkrA gkftj i{kdkjku }kjk tfj;s vf/koDrk ÁkFkZuk i= ckcr~ i=koyh ryc fd;s tkus dk is'k fd;k x;k] ftl ij i=koyh lhxs ls ryc dh xbZA vf/koDrk mHk; i{kdkjku us tkfgj fd;k fd i{kdkjku ds e/; jkthukek gks x;k gS vkSj os bl Ádj.k esa vc dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrs gSaA
gkftj ifjoknh xksiky flag eh.kk o et:c euh"k dqekj eh.kk o gkftj vfHk;qDrx.k jru eh.kk o tru eh.kk mQZ jksfgr eh.kk us tfj;s vf/koDrkx.k ÁkFkZuk i= ckcr~ 323] 341 vkbZŒihŒlhŒ esa jkthukek rLnhd fd;s tkus dk is'k fd;k x;k] ftldh bckjr i{kdkjku~ dks i<+dj] lqukbZ o le>kbZ xbZ rks i{kdkjku us lqu o le>dj jkthukes dh bckjr dks lgh gksuk o fcuk fdlh ncko ds gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA i{kdkjku dh igpku muds vf/koDrkx.k }kjk dh xbZA ckn xkSj i=koyh /kkjk 323] 341 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dkfcys jkthukek gksus ds dkj.k jkthukek ckn lek/kku U;k;ky; rLnhd fd;k x;kA jkthukek 'kkfey i=koyh jgsA
pwafd vfHk;qDrx.k jru eh.kk o tru eh.kk mQZ jksfgr eh.kk dk ifjoknh xksiky flag eh.kk o et:c euh"k dqekj eh.kk ds lkFk vkjksfir vijk/k /kkjk 323] 341 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ds vijk/k esa jkthukek gksdj fof/k vuqlkj rLnhd fd;k tk pqdk gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k & ¼1½ vfHk;qDr jru eh.kk iq= ?ku';ke eh.kk] fuoklh edku uEcj 4319] xksfoUn jko th dk jkLrk] t;iqj ,oa ¼2½ vfHk;qDr tru eh.kk mQZ jksfgr eh.kk iq= ?ku';ke eh.kk] fuoklh edku uEcj 4319] xksfoUn jko th dk jkLrk] t;iqj dks vkjksfir vijk/k /kkjk 323] 341 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ds vkjksi ls c:;s jkthukek nks"keqDr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA
Ádj.k esa vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 143] 452 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa fopkj.k 'ks"k jgrk gSA i=koyh fu;r is'kh fnukad 20-02-2019 dks okLrs lk{; vfHk;kstu gsrq is'k gksA**
3. Yesterday also, parties were present in the court and this Court had passed the following order:-
"Let at first instance, statement of parties be recorded by Registrar (Judicial) of this Court after they are duly identified.
List this case tomorrow, i.e. on 12.2.2019."
4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, statement of complainants Gopal Singh Meena and Manish Meena have been recorded by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The said statements are taken on record and for ready reference the same are reproduced below:-
^^jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB] t;iqj
,lŒchŒ fØfeuy felŒ ihfV'ku uEcj 1006@2019
jru ehuk o vU; cuke jktLFkku ljdkj o vU;
fnukad 11-02-2019
eSa xksiky flag ehuk iq= LoΠJh y{e.kjke ehuk] tkfr ehuk] vk;q 59 o"kZ] fuoklh & edku uEcj 4335] xksfoUn jko th jkLrk] vk[kjh pkSjkgk] iqjkuh cLrh t;iqj ftyk & t;iqjA
'kiFkiwoZd c;ku djrk gaw fd jru ehuk vkSj tru ehuk gekjs iMkslh ,oa fj'rsnkjh esa gSA esjs iq= euh"k ehuk ls jru ehuk vkSj tru ehuk dh fdlh ckr ij dgklquh gks x;h >xMk gks x;k FkkA ftl dkj.k esjs }kjk jru ehuk ,oa mlds HkkbZ tru ehuk ,oa vU; yksxks ds f[kykQ ukgjx< Fkkus esa ,d eqdnek uEcj 239@2013 ntZ djk;k x;k FkkA mDr eqdnesa esa gekjh vkilh lgefr ls jkthukek gks pqdk gS vkSj eSa vc jru ehuk ,oa mlds HkkbZ tru ehuk ,oa vU; yksxks ds f[kykQ mDr eqdnesa esa dksbZ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrk gawA eq>s vkSj dqN ugha dguk gSA
uksV & xokg dk c;ku esjs funsZ'ku esa mlds dgs vuqlkj Vad.kdrkZ }kjk dEI;qVj ij V
