Single judge bench rejected petitioner's prayer to quash FIR and complainant's first information report in a rape case despite a settlement. The court held that Section 376 IPC is a grave offence where quashing is impermissible under inherent powers.
The petition for quashing the FIR and First Cognition Report was dismissed as untenable.
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.
-1-
राजस थान उच् च न् यायालय जयप् ुर पीठ जयपुर
आदशे
एकलपीठ दािण्डक िविवध यािचका संख् या- 4714/2015
िदलीप जैमन
बनाम
राजस ् थान राज ् य एवं र ॿ ीमती वषार ् शमार ्
िदनांक: 26.10.2015
माननीय न ् यायािधपित र ॿ ी बनवारी लाल शमार ्
रॿी कुलदीप असवाल अिधव्व ा याची की ओर से
रॿी एन एस धाकड़-िव�ान् लोक अिभयोजक वास्ते राज्य
याची- अिभयु्व ने यह दािण्डक िविवध यािचका धारा-482 दण्ड र९िरढ़या संिहता के र९ावधान� के तहत उसके िवरू� पुिलस थाना- गांधी नगर, जयपुर शहर पूवर् म� दजर् र९थम सूचना िरपोटर् संख्या- 348/2014 अन्तगर्त धारा-376 भारतीय दण्ड संिहता को राजीनामे के आधार पर िनरस्त िकये जाने की र९ाथर्ना के साथ पेश की है।
िव�ान् अिधव्व ा याची रॿी कुलदीप असवाल ने िनवेदन िकया िक इस मामले म� याची व अयाची संख्या-2 पीिड़त-पिरवािदया के मध्य समझौता हो गया है तथा इस सम्बन्ध म� अयाची-पिरवािदया ने शपथ पर७ भी िदया है, िजसम� उसने गलत फहमी म� र९थम सूचना िरपोटर् दजर् करवाना अंिकत िकया है। इसिलए उ्व राजीनामे के आधार पर याची के िवरू� दजर् र९थम सूचना िरपोटर् को िनरस्त िकया जावे।
िव�ान् लोक अिभयोजक ने इसका िवरोध िकया।
उभय प्ष� के तक� पर िवचार िकया।
माननीय सव�्च न्यायालय �ारा ्ञ ान िसह बनाम पंजाब राज्य (2012) 10 एस.सी.सी. 303 म� अिभिनधार्िरत िकया गया है िक :
''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
-2-
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 in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly 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
-3-
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.''
उ्व न्याियक दृ�ान्त के पिरपे�य म� गंभीर अपराध� के मामल� म� र९थम सूचना िरपोटर् िनरस्त नह� करने के माननीय सव�्च न्यायालय ने िनद�श िदये ह�। धारा-376 भारतीय दण्ड संिहता का अपराध गम्भीर र९कृित का अपराध है तथा उ्व अपराध के अन्तगर्त दजर् र९थम सूचना िरपोटर् को िनरस्त िकया जाना न्यायोिचत र९तीत नह� होता है।
अत: अिभयु्व -याची की ओर से र९स्तुत यह दािण्डक िविवध यािचका सारहीन होने से अस्वीकार की जाती है तथा उ्व िस्थित म� संल्ि स्थगन र९ाथर्ना पर७ भी िनरस्त िकया जाता है।
( न ् या 0 बनवारी लाल शमार ् )
अिनलशमा/-M-30 ''all corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed.”अिनलशमार्/ps
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash an FIR under Section 376 IPC in a serious offence despite a settlement between parties.
Whether a compromise in a heinous crime involving mental depravity is a ground for quashing criminal proceedings.
Whether Section 482 CrPC power can be exercised to dismiss the first cognition report in a rape case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Baldeo Singh v. StateFollowed¶10
Baldeo Singh v. State (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dileep Jain
State of Rajasthan
Rajesh Sharma
Rama Narayan Singh
Bansi Lal Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
