Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 962
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Smt. Phuli Kanwar @ Anitaraj – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 464/2023
Decided On : 23-01-2023
Mr. R.S. Choudhary, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. MS Bhati, PP, for the Respondent.
THE COURT MAY EXERCISE ITS INHERENT POWERS UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC TO QUASH AN FIR IN CASES WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE ENTERED INTO A COMPROMISE.
Headnote:
QUASHING OF FIR - SECTION 482 CRPC - SECTION 376 IPC - SECTION 376(2)(D) IPC - SECTION 376D IPC - SECTION 328 IPC - SECTION 67 IT ACT - COMPROMISE BETWEEN PARTIES - INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT - SUMMARY OF THE ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED BY THE COURT, INCLUDING KEY LEGAL PROVISIONS, THEIR INTERPRETATIONS, AND HOW THEY INFLUENCED THE COURT'S DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
THE PETITIONER WAS ACCUSED OF OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 328, 376(2)(D), 376D IPC, AND 67 OF THE IT ACT. THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO A COMPROMISE AND THE COMPLAINANT WAS DECLARED HOSTILE.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE FIR SHOULD BE QUASHED IN VIEW OF THE COMPROMISE ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS IN GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR., DHABBA NATH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR., AND PRASHANT BHARTIYA VS. STATE OF DELHI.
Issues: WHETHER THE FIR SHOULD BE QUASHED IN VIEW OF THE COMPROMISE ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT RELIED ON THE DECISIONS IN GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR., DHABBA NATH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR., AND PRASHANT BHARTIYA VS. STATE OF DELHI, WHICH HELD THAT IN CASES WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE ENTERED INTO A COMPROMISE, THE COURT MAY EXERCISE ITS INHERENT POWERS UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC TO QUASH THE FIR.
Final Decision: THE COURT ALLOWED THE PETITION AND QUASHED THE FIR AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO.
ORDER
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main accused namely Rajesh Kumar and Jepa Ram have filed two separate misc. petitions being SB Cr. Misc. Petition Nos.5299/2022 & 14/2023 respectively and both the petitioners were allowed by this Court and the impugned FIR along with entire criminal proceedings initiated pursuant thereto have been quashed. Counsel submits that the parties have entered into a compromise in the on-going criminal proceedings. Counsel further submits that the prosecutrix has also been examined before the trial court as PW-1 and she has been declared hostile. In such circumstances, the impugned FIR along with criminal proceedings initiated pursuant thereto against the petitioner may be quashed.
2. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2021 decided on 30.07.2021, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-
"3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter-alia, that the Appellant had committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed that both the Accused (Appellant) and Respondent No. 2 were living together for a considerable while. The complainant’s allegation is that the Appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that he is divorced. The complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.
4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a child was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year 2018). As a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them.
5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant - who does not dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution further, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings must be quashed.
6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside; the FIR (No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not come in the way or in any manner prejudice the contentions of the parties in any other pending proceedings, which shall 20-09-2022 be decided in accordance with law.
7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent."
3. Learned counsels for the petitioner has submitted the following order for consideration passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.4119/2021 decided on 06.04.2022 (Dhabba Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), which reads as follows:-
"1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.94/2021 registered at Police Station Gida, District Barmer for the offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the I.T. Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of investigation, the petitioner and the complainant have entered into a compromise and thus, no dispute remains pending between them and the complainant does not wish to continue with the present litigation.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the compromise in question has been produced before the Investigating Officer, who has verified the factum of compromise and the same has been executed without any force or coercion.
4. Learned counsel submits that the complaint in question came be to be lodged by the complainant on account of an audio of the conversation between the petitioner and complainant getting viral and now the parties have decided to resolve the dispute having regard to the fact that the petitioner and complainant are close relatives.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant also accepts the fact of the compromise and submits that even the husband of the prosecutrix/complainant has sign
