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) 2251

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Manoj – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 4856 of 2023
Decided On : 06-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: R.P. Singaria
For the Respondents: Mukesh Trivedi, Hetram

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Quashing of FIR - Compromise between the petitioner and the complainant - Court considers joint submission of counsel indicating parties do not wish to proceed - The court recognizes the importance of mediation and past judicial decisions including Prashant Bhartiya v. State of Delhi. - In view of the legal precedents, and the compromise arrived at, the court utilizes inherent powers to quash the FIR. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Criminal Law - Compromise in Sexual Offences - The court acknowledges the precedent set in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab regarding the possibility of quashing FIR due to compromise in specific circumstances, emphasizing judicial discretion in such cases. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR under Section 376 IPC. The parties jointly indicated their desire to resolve matters amicably. A previous ruling related to circumstances surrounding compromises in sexual offense cases was cited.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the case could be quashed based on the compromise between the parties, without infringing on other legal proceedings they may be involved in.

Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR under Section 376 could be quashed based on the parties' compromise.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that based on the precedent and the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the relationship between the parties and their compromise, it was appropriate to quash the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Result: The FIR No. 130/2023 is hereby quashed.

Table of Content
1. petition overview and fir details (Para 1)
2. parties reached a compromise (Para 2)
3. court's reasoning based on precedent (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
4. case principles applied to uphold quashing (Para 6 , 7)
5. final order of quashing fir (Para 8)

ORDER :

1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.c. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 130/2023 registered at Police Station Falasiya, District Udaipur and all consequential proceedings in pursuance thereto for offences under Section 376 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents No. 2 jointly submit that the petitioner and the complainant have entered into compromise in the on-going criminal proceedings. It is thus submitted that the parties are not inclined to proceed further in this matter.

3. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the material available on record.

4. 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.”

5. 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 tha

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