HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Tansukh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRLMP / 2186 / 2025
Decided On : 17-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 341, 336, 308, and 34 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner sought quashing of FIR based on amicable settlement between parties - Compromise deed presented - Court noted that some offences are non-compoundable but relied on principles from Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana to quash FIR for maintaining harmony and justice - Court emphasized that prosecution becomes futile when parties resolve disputes amicably. (Paras 5-6)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Inherent powers of High Court - High Court has the discretion to quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences if it serves the ends of justice. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash FIR No.273/2024 for offences under IPC sections, stating that the parties resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to pursue criminal proceedings. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The court found the compromise valid and deemed it appropriate to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings as it did not affect public peace. (Paras 6-7)
Issues: Whether the FIR could be quashed despite some offences being non-compoundable based on the amicable settlement between the parties. (Para 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in cases where disputes are personal and do not affect public peace, the High Court may quash FIRs to promote harmony and justice, even for non-compoundable offences. (Para 5)
Result: The criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed; the FIR and all further proceedings are quashed.
Order :
1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of FIR No.273/2024 registered at the Police Station Kotwali, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 308 and 34 of the IPC.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute in between the parties has been resolved through an amicable settlement and now, there remains no controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings further. A copy of the compromise deed executed between the parties has been placed on the record.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for complainant-respondent admits the fact of compromise and submits that he is willing if the FIR and the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties. He submits that in a fit of anger an exaggerated version of the incident was narrated in the FIR and now under the mediation of the elderly persons, the parties have decided to bury the hatchet forever.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.
5. Heard, perused the material available on record more particularly the nature of allegation and the compromise deed executed in between the parties. The parties to the lis have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same. Some of the offences alleged in this matter are non- compoundable, however, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] has propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it. It is observed that in such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame prosecution would be a waste of time and energy that will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [2003 (4) SCC 675] the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-compoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact that the offence under Section 308 IPC is a non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. This court is aptly guided by the principles propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and feels that where the dispute is essentially inter se between the parties, either they are relatives, neighbours or having business relationship and which does not affect the society at large, then in such cases, with a view to maintain harmonious relationships between the two sides, to end-up the dispute in between them permanently as well as for restitution of relationship, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR and all other subsequent pr
The court may quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences if parties reach an amicable settlement, promoting harmony and justice.
Court can quash criminal proceedings based on amicable settlement in personal disputes not affecting public peace, even if some offences are non-compoundable.
The court can quash criminal proceedings based on an amicable settlement when the offences are personal in nature and do not affect public peace.
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings based on amicable settlement if the dispute is personal and does not affect public peace.
The High Court can quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings based on amicable settlements in personal disputes that do not affect public peace.
Quashing of criminal proceedings is permissible when parties reach an amicable settlement and the dispute is personal, not affecting public peace.
Non-compoundable offences may be quashed if they are personal in nature and do not affect public peace, promoting harmony between parties.
The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences if the dispute is personal and does not affect public peace, aiming to restore harmony between parties.
The court may quash non-compoundable offences if a personal dispute is settled and public peace is not affected.
The High Court may quash non-compoundable offences if they arise from personal disputes that do not affect public peace, promoting amicable resolutions.
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.