IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
GANESH RAM MEENA, J
SHRI BALDEV RAM SON OF SHRI BHURARAM JAT - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
CRLMP / 1250 / 2025
Decided On : 04-03-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Compromise between parties - FIR No. 91/2006 for offences u/S 147, 365, 342, 323 & 427 IPC quashed based on a compromise between the parties, with the court emphasizing that continuation of proceedings would be futile due to bleak chances of conviction. (Paras 1, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Inherent Powers of the High Court - The court may quash criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences if it serves the ends of justice, particularly in personal disputes. (Paras 7, 9)
(C) Judicial Discretion - The court has the discretion to relieve itself from excessive workload by quashing cases where a compromise has been reached. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR for various IPC offences after a compromise was reached with the complainant. The trial court attested the compromise for some offences but rejected it for others.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the dispute was amicably settled and that continuing the proceedings would not serve justice.
Issues: The main issues were whether the compromise could be attested for non-compoundable offences and the implications of such a compromise on the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that quashing proceedings can be justified even for non-compoundable offences if it serves justice and reflects the parties' resolution of their dispute.
Result: The petition is allowed, and the FIR is quashed.
ORDER :
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of FIR No. 91/2006 registered on 18.09.2006 at Police Station Ropangarh, District Ajmer for offences punishable u/S 147, 365, 342, 323 & 427 IPC and all consequential proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant submit that a compromise has arrived at between the parties and they have submitted an application before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kishangarh on 28.01.2025 to attest the compromise. However, the learned trial Court attested the compromise as regards the offences u/S 342, 323, 325, 427 IPC and rejected the same as regards the offence u/S 147 & 324 IPC observing that the trial is pending.
3. Heard.
4. The parties, after removing their bad blood, have entered into a compromise and they have submitted an application before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kishangarh on 28.01.2025 to attest the compromise, wherein the complainant party has stated that they do not want any further proceedings in the matter.
5. The learned trial Court vide order dated 28.01.2025 attested the compromise as regards the offence u/S 342, 323, 325, 427 IPC, however, denied to attest the compromise for the offence u/S 147 & 324 IPC as the same is not compoundable.
6. A bare perusal of the material on record shows that the dispute between the parties has amicably been settled by them.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 has observed as follows:-
“57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or th
The court may quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties, even for non-compoundable offences, if it serves the ends of justice.
The court can quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the parties, prioritizing justice and practicality over the formalities of compounding offences.
The court may quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties, emphasizing that such quashing is distinct from compounding offences.
The court may quash criminal proceedings if the parties have settled their disputes, even for non-compoundable offences, to prevent futile litigation and secure justice.
The court can quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties, emphasizing that such quashing is distinct from compounding offences and is guided by the ends of justice.
The court may quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties, emphasizing that such quashing serves the ends of justice, distinct from compounding offences.
The High Court may quash criminal proceedings if the parties have settled their disputes amicably, emphasizing the distinction between quashing and compounding offences.
The High Court may quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties, emphasizing the distinction from compounding offences and focusing on the ends of justice.
The court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings based on compromise, in line with the guidelines engrafted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian....
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.