IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
FARJAND ALI, J
Jagdish - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRLMP 2332 of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 528 (Old 482) - Quashing of proceedings - Criminal Case No.50/2021 pending for offences under Sections 406, 498-A and 323 IPC - Parties resolved dispute amicably and do not wish to continue proceedings - Compromise acknowledged by complainant and trial court - Non-compoundable offences considered under Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] - High Court quashes proceedings to maintain harmony. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - The High Court can quash proceedings if offences are personal and do not affect public peace, ensuring justice and peace between parties. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The petition was filed to quash proceedings in a criminal case based on FIR No.77/2019, with the petitioner and respondent having resolved their disputes amicably and expressing a desire to end the proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the dispute was personal and did not affect public peace, allowing the quashing of the proceedings to maintain harmony between the parties.
Issues: The primary issue was whether to quash the proceedings based on the amicable settlement between the parties despite some offences being non-compoundable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that where disputes are personal and do not affect public peace, it is appropriate to quash proceedings to restore harmony, guided by the principles from Gian Singh's case.
Result: Criminal miscellaneous Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
Order :
FARJAND ALI, J
1. The instant criminal misc. Petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS (Old 482 Cr.PC) for quashing of proceedings in Original Criminal Case No.50/2021 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar arising out of FIR No.77/2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A and 323 of 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.
3. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has attested the compromise for the offence under Sections 406 and 323 of IPC but has not attested the compromise for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and kept the proceeding pending by it. It is submitted that as the parties have entered into compromise, there remains no controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings further.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for complainant-respondent admits the fact of compromise and submits that he is willing if the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties.
6. Heard, perused the material available on record more particularly the police report, 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 by filing a joint application before the trial court. 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. 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 proceedings initiated thereto.
7. Here in this case, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that is essentially in between the parties which is not affecting public peace and tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain the harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings mentioned above.
8. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the further proceedings of Original Criminal Case No.50/2021 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar are hereby quashed and set aside. The accused are acquitted from the charge and their bail bonds are discharged.
9. Stay petition stands disposed of.
The High Court may quash criminal proceedings when parties reach an amicable settlement in personal disputes that do not affect public peace, exercising inherent powers under Section 528.
Quashing of criminal proceedings is permissible when parties reach an amicable settlement and the dispute is personal, not affecting public peace.
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings based on amicable settlement if the dispute is personal and does not affect public peace.
Court can quash criminal proceedings based on amicable settlement in personal disputes not affecting public peace, even if some offences are non-compoundable.
The High Court has the inherent power to quash FIRs for personal disputes that do not affect public peace, even if some offences are non-compoundable.
The court can quash FIRs for personal disputes through amicable settlements, even if some offences are non-compoundable, to maintain peace and harmony.
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 may quash non-compoundable offences if they arise from personal disputes that do not affect public peace, promoting amicable resolutions.
The court may quash criminal proceedings based on amicable settlement between parties when disputes are personal and do not affect public peace.
The court can quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is personal and does not affect public peace, promoting harmony between parties.
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.