[2023:RJ-JP:33258]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4559/2023

1. Vikram Singh S/o Bacchu Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Pathaina, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj).

2. Surjeet Singh S/o Bacchu Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Pathaina, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj).

3. Prahlad Singh S/o Sukhpal Singh, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Sukhpal Singh, R/o Nera Bangar, Tehsil Mahawan, District Mathura Chhata ( Uttar Pradesh).

4. Deepak Kumar S/o Laxminarayan, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Gumanjji Wali Dhani, Bhanipura, Raipur Jageer, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, Sikar (Raj)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Naveen Chopra S/o Sheeshram, R/o Jhuma Khurd, Siwani, Bhiwani, Haryana, Presently R/o 191, Vasundhara Colony, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur City (East).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Mahala, PP Mr. Manish Sharma for Mr. Krishankant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

04/11/2023

1. The petitioner No.1 and the complainant are present in person and have been identified by their respective counsel.

2. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.06/2023 registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur City (East) seeking petitioners’ prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 427 & 458 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the investigation, the petitioners have entered into a compromise with the complainant. The written compromise has been annexed with this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant while accepting the factum of compromise submits that the complainant has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that apart from the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 427 & 458 of IPC, the FIR has been registered under the provisions of SC/ST Act as well and the same cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. He, however, accepts the factum of compromise having been entered into without coercion and duress.

6. In order to support his contention that FIR/proceedings under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’) can be quashed, learned counsel for the petitioners invites Court’s attention towards the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 5228

7. In the above referred case of Ramawatar (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed thus :

“12. In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the decision of this Court in Ramgopal (Supra) and reiterate that the powers of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the complainant/victim and the accused.

13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in postconviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite l