HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6592 / 2016 1. Rajnikant S/o Shri Netrapal Sharma, Aged About 44 Years, R/o B-237, Karani Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner 2. Netrapal Sharma S/o Shri Sunderlal Sharma, R/o B-237, Karani Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner 3. Bunty@ Dharmender Kumar S/o Shri Sunderlal Sharma, R/o B- 237, Karani Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner 4. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Correct Name Sanjay Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ashok Sharma, R/o Plot No. 81, Behind Ridhi Sidhi Flat No. 11, Jaipur 5. Smt. Krashana Devi W/o Shri Netrpal Sharma, R/o B-237, Karani Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner 6. Smt. Swetarani Sharma W/o Sanjay Kumar Sharma, R/o Plot No. 81, Behind Ridhi Sidhi Flat No. 11, Jaipur 7. Bindu Sharma D/o Shri Netrapal Sharma, R/o B-237, Karani Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner 8. Anuradha Sharma W/o Shri Sudheer Kumar Sharma, R/o Kathuria Colony, Bikaner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through PP ----Petitioners 2. Smt. Rehkha Jha W/o Rajnikant Sharma D/o Shri Ramesh Chand Jha, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Narsingh Road, Tavela, Police Station Nihalgang, Dholpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Mishra Adv. with Ms. Sarita Sharma Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Gurjar, P.P. Mr. Sanjay Sharma Adv. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment 24/08/2017
(2 of 5) Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the First Information Report No. 257/2016 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Dholpur for the offence under Sections 323, 406, 498A, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 on the basis of compromise. Vide order dated 28.02.2017, case was sent to Mediation Centre. Parties appeared before the Mediation Centre and have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent no.2 have submitted that the FIR be quashed in view of compromise effected between the parties before the Mediation Centre. Report of the Mediation Centre dated 23.03.2017 has been placed on record and the same is reads as under:- "Both the parties present along with their advocates and have amicably deicded to come to a compromise on the following terms. 1. That the petitioner Rajnikant has agreed to pay sum of Rs.22 Lac in the form of 2 FDRs of 11 Lac each in the name of his two daughters (1) Shree aged eight years and (2) Shubhi aged 3 years respectively and Rs.1 Lac in lieu of all the items of reespondent which are lying in the house of petitioner. 2. That on 5 th April the petition will come before the mediation centre & on that day petitioner will bring a FDR of Rs.5 Lac in favour of Ms. Shree and further a account payee cheque of Rs. 1 Lac favour of respondent Smt. Rekha. The Cheque & FDR will be received by Sh. Sanjay Sharma, advocate on behalf of respondent. 3. That both the parties have amicably decided to file a petition for mutual divorce on 24 th April, 2017 before the District Judge Dholpur. 4. That on the same date i.e. 24 th April, 2017. Petition will give one FDR of sum of Rs.6 Lac in favour of his older daughter Ms. Shree in the Court.
(3 of 5) 5. That Immediately after filing of the divorce petition on 24 th April, 2017 both the parties will withdraw all the cases pending till date, they have filed against each other in respective courts. No further cases will be filed against each other in future." Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that in pursuance to the said report, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have filed a petition for divorce. In (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, it has been held by Hon ble Supreme Court as under:- The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working
(4 of 5) in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. Since, the parties have amicably settled their dispute, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, in view of compromise effected between the parties, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 257/2016 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Dholpur for the offence under Sections 323, 406, 498A, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(5 of 5) and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) J. S.Kumawat/D-30