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) 2250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Ravindra Kumar Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 3723 of 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Manish Shishodiya, Umesh Kant Vyas, Harshvardhan Singh Rathore
For the Respondent: A.R. Choudhary

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 376 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Compromise between parties in criminal proceedings. The parties reached a compromise, leading the court to quash the FIR and all related proceedings, recognizing the complainant's position and the substantial familial relationship. The principle established is that judicial intervention is warranted in cases where compromise emerges from genuine resolution efforts among the parties involved. (Paras 2, 6, 7)

(B) Law on Compromise in Criminal Matters - The courts may quash FIRs based on compromises between parties considering the rights and circumstances involved, as established in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab. (Paras 5, 6, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner and complainant, after engaging in mediation during ongoing criminal proceedings, decided not to pursue the matter further, leading to a court-supported compromise. (Paras 1-4)

Findings of Court:
The Court recognized the validity of the compromise and quashed FIR No. 260/2023, along with all consequent proceedings against the petitioner, reflecting consideration of familial relationships and social context. (Paras 7, 8)

Issues: The primary issues addressed revolve around the appropriateness of continuing prosecution after a compromise and the judicial discretion to quash an FIR based on such agreements. (Paras 6, 7)

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that where genuine compromise exists, the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is appropriate, aligning with established legal precedents that support resolution of disputes amicably. (Paras 5-8)

Result: The misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No. 260/2023 is quashed.

Table of Content
1. parties reach a compromise in ongoing proceedings. (Para 1 , 4)
2. court acknowledges prior supreme court rulings. (Para 2)
3. ratio decidendi established based on compromise principles. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court quashes fir based on compromise. (Para 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 judgement 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 judgement 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 petitioner and also consid

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