IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Kheraj Ram Dudi – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5435/2022
Decided On : 17-10-2022
Compromise - Quashing of FIR under SC/ST Act - Indian Penal Code, Sections 143, 323, 341; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner sought to quash the FIR registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act, citing a compromise with the complainant. The Investigating Officer verified the compromise, and the parties appeared before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, considering the voluntary compromise between the parties and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar, which affirmed the court's power to quash criminal proceedings based on a voluntary compromise.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR under the SC/ST Act could be quashed based on a compromise between the parties, despite the offences not being compoundable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar, which affirmed the court's power to quash criminal proceedings based on a voluntary compromise, while emphasizing that the compromise must be with free will.
Final Decision: The criminal misc. petition was allowed, and the FIR was quashed and set aside.
ORDER
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.0084/2022 registered at Police Station Asop, District Jodhpur (Rural) seeking petitioner’s prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323 and 341 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the investigation, the petitioner has entered into a compromise with the complainant and the written compromise has been placed before the Investigating Officer, pursuant to direction given by this Court on 16.09.2022, who has verified the same.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the FIR has been registered under the provisions of SC/ST Act, the same cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. He, however, accepts the factum of compromise having been entered into without coercion and duress.
4. In order to support his contention that FIR/proceedings under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ’SC/ST Act’) can be quashed, learned counsel for the petitioner invites Court’s attention towards the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 5228.
5. In the above referred case of Ramawatar (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed thus :
"12. In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the decision of this Court in Ramgopal (Supra) and reiterate that the powers of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the complainant/victim and the accused.
13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in postconviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/ compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).
14. With respect to the second question before us, it must be noted that ven though the powers of this Court under Article 142 are wide and far reaching, the same cannot be exercised in a vacuum. True it is that ordinary statutes or any restrictions contained therein, cannot be constructed as a limitation on the Court’s power to do ’complete justice’. However, this is not to say that this Court can altogether ignore the statutory provisions or other express prohibitions in law. In fact, the Court is obligated to take note of the relevant laws and will have to regulate the use of its power and discretion accordingly. The Constitution Bench decision in the case of Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India & Anr. has eloquently clarified this point as follows:
’48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 has the power to make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice ’between the parties in any cause or matter pending b
The court has the power to quash criminal proceedings based on a voluntary compromise, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, but the compromise must be with free will.
The Court has the power to quash proceedings under the SC/ST Act based on a genuine compromise, even for non-compoundable offences, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar.
The court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings/FIR under the SC/ST Act if the compromise between the parties is with free will and if the underlying objective of the Act would not be cont....
The Court can quash proceedings under the SC/ST Act based on a compromise if it does not contravene the Act's objectives, and the compromise is made with free will.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the underlying objective of the SC/ST Act and the need for caution when exercising the power to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of C....
The court may quash FIRs under the SC/ST Act based on voluntary compromise, provided the act's objectives are not undermined.
The court has the power to quash proceedings/FIR in cases involving offences under the provisions of SC/ST Act based on a compromise, provided the compromise is with free will, and the court consider....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.