SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Raj) 2249

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Ramesh Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 6648 of 2023
Decided On : 20-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ram Prakash Prajapat
For the Respondents: Laxman Solanki, Vinod Prajapat

A valid compromise between parties in criminal proceedings can justify the quashing of FIRs and associated actions, contingent on the nature of the allegations and prior judicial principles.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, Sections 376 and 384 - Compromise in ongoing criminal proceedings - The petitioner and complainant entered into a compromise, leading the court to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings. The decision aligns with principles established in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Prashant Bhartiya v. State of Delhi. (Paras 1, 5, 6, 7)

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petition based on the compromise, quashing the FIR and subsequent legal actions.

Issues: The main issue was whether the ongoing prosecution should continue after a compromise was reached.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a valid compromise justifies quashing FIRs in cases of lesser gravity, as reaffirmed in prior significant rulings.

Result: The FIR and all related proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. compromise between the complainant and petitioner. (Para 1)
2. reference to precedents regarding compromise and quashing fir. (Para 2 , 5)
3. details of past cases and legal basis for quashing. (Para 4)
4. court's decision to quash fir based on settlements. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)

ORDER :

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2/complainant jointly submit that the petitioner and the complainant have entered into compromise in the ongoing criminal proceedings. It is thus submitted that the parties are not inclined to proceed further in the matter.

2. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhartiya v. 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 counsel 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 v. 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 signed the compromise.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering that the complainant is aunt (Mami) of the present petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top