Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Minu Singh @ Abhimanyu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7109/2021
Decided On : 03-01-2022
Compromise - Criminal Proceedings - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Sections 406, 323, 498-A IPC - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the power of the High Court in quashing criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, as distinct from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. The court referred to the guidelines for exercising inherent power, emphasizing that the nature and gravity of the crime must be considered, and that heinous and serious offences cannot be fittingly quashed even if the victim and offender have settled the dispute. However, in cases with overwhelmingly civil flavor or private nature, where the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal case would cause oppression and prejudice to the accused, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings. The court also considered the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case, emphasizing that when matrimonial disputes have been settled by mutual compromise, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings pending against him for offences punishable under Sections 406, 323, and 498-A IPC. The trial court allowed the parties to compound the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that as the parties had already entered into a compromise and decided to live separately, and appropriate proceedings were pending before the family court, there was no possibility of the accused being convicted. Therefore, the court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending.
Issues: The issues involved the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner for offences under Sections 406, 323, and 498-A IPC, based on the compromise between the parties and the nature of the offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the guidelines for exercising inherent power, the nature and gravity of the crime, and the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case, emphasizing that when matrimonial disputes have been settled by mutual compromise, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending.
Final Decision: The criminal misc. petition was allowed, and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner were quashed.
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against him before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court1) in Criminal Case NCV No. 5793/2016 - State of Rajasthan Vs. Minu Singh (arising out of FIR No.21/2013 of Women Police Station, Jodhpur), whereby the trial court vide order dated 04.12.2021 has attested the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC as the same is not compoundable.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, the Women Police Station, Jodhpur has registered the FIR No.21/2013 against the petitioner. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 406, 323 and 498-A IPC in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. During the pendency of the trial, two applications were preferred on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be terminated. The trial court vide order dated 04.12.2021 allowed the parties to compound the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC, however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.
3. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings pending against him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have decided to live separately by mutual consent and in this regard an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is already filed by the petitioner and the same is pending adjudication before the concerned family court. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and decided to live separately and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.
6. 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 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 re
AI
The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction must consider the nature and gravity of the crime, the impact on society, and the possibility of con....
The court has the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings if the parties have settled their dispute and continuation of the case would cause oppression and prejudice to....
The court can quash criminal proceedings based on compromise and settlement between the parties, even if the offence is non-compoundable, in order to establish peace and harmony.
The court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings based on compromise, in line with the guidelines engrafted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
