The Court quashed an FIR in a cheating case against petitioners after complainants received a refund of education fees and settled the dispute, citing civil nature and settled accounts.
Quashed FIR No.117/12 registered at Police Station Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
SB CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.721/2013 (Jugal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order :- 12.03.2013
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN
Mr. Narendra, petitioner No.2, present in person. Mr. Islam Ali, respondent No.2, present in person. Mr. Yunus Ali, respondent No.3, present in person.
In pursuance of the order passed in morning session, the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) has recorded the statements of Narendra, the petitioner No.2, and of Islam Ali and Yunus Ali, the complainant-respondents No.2 and 3 respectively.
Both Islam Ali and Yunus Ali inform this court that in 2008, they had enrolled with Juglal Poonia Education Institute for Computer Education. For this purpose, they had submitted a fee of Rs.5,000/- each with the petitioners. However, as they were dissatisfied with the training being imparted to them, they had requested the petitioners to return the fee amount. However, they refused to do so. Thus, they lodged a FIR, namely FIR No.117/12, at Police Station Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. Subsequently, the parties have settled their dispute. According to Islam Ali and Yunus Ali they have received the fee amount from the petitioners. Hence, they are not interested in pursuing the aforesaid FIR lodged by them. Thus, a joint prayer has been made by the petitioner No.2,
and respondents No.2 and 3 that the FIR in question should be quashed by this court.
In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another [2012 (9) SCC 427], the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed as under :-
“54. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although 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 wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens wellbeing of 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 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 Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and 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 the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R. if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list
is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.”
Considering the fact that the petitioners have resolved their disputes, considering the fact that the case basically relates to recovery of money by the complainants from the petitioners, considering the fact that the amount has been duly returned to the complainants, considering the fact that the case is basically of a commercial transaction and considering the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra), this court quashes the FIR No.117/12, registered against the petitioners at Police Station Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC.
The petition is, hereby, allowed. The stay application is also disposed of.
[R.S. Chauhan] J.
GS
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Govind Sharma, PA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR should be quashed after the settlement of the civil dispute and return of money.
Whether the principles enunciated in Gian Singh apply to quash criminal proceedings in a civil-matrimonial-commercial transaction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & AnotherReferred¶14
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another [2012 (9) SCC 427] · Who else cites this
Jugal & Anr.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
R.S. Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
