Allowed

Babu Lal Sharma and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC21 Sept 2016CRLMP/239/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings arising from a public offence under the IPC. The court held that despite the offence being non-compoundable, the dispute had been amicably settled and the compromise was attended by the complainant, rendering the continuation of proceedings an exercise in futility.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.10.2015 set aside; Criminal Case No.779/2015 dropped; F.I.R. No.542/2014 quashed; Stay Application No.284/2016 disposed of.

Babu Lal Sharma and Anr. Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

Crlmp239/2016

¶2

// 1 //

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

IN S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.239/2016

¶6

Babu Lal Sharma S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Sharma, by caste Brahmin, R/o Village Tilawa, Jagarpura, P.S. Pratap Nagar, District Jaipur 2. Shankar Lal S/o Chhotu Ram, by caste Haryana Brahmin, R/o Khataipura, P.S. Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur ...accused-petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ...Respondent

¶9

Girraj Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Ramswaroop Sharma, R/o Dudhali, P.S. Bassi, District Jaipur ...complainant-respondent

¶10

Date of Order ::: 21.09.2016

¶11

Present

¶12

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

¶13

Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, counsel for accused-petitioners Mr. R.R. Baisla, Public Prosecutor, for the State Mr. Suresh Chand Sharma, counsel for complainantrespondent

¶14

¶15

By the Court :-

¶16

Learned counsel for the parties submit that during pendency of the trial in criminal case arising out of F.I.R. No.542/2014, Police Station Bassi, for offence under Sections 435, 457 and 34 of the IPC, the accused-petitioners and complainant-respondent have settled the matter by way of compromise and both the parties moved application dated 29.10.2015 along-with copy of compromise before learned trial court for attestation thereof and to drop the proceedings in the

¶17

Crlmp239/2016 // 2 //

¶18

criminal case on that basis. Learned trial court, vide order dated 29.10.2015, dismissed the application on the ground that the alleged offences are not compoundable. Hence this petition for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No.779/2015 – State Vs. Babu Lal Sharma and Another pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (SD) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on the basis of compromise.

¶19

Learned counsel for accused-petitioners has cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab – (2012) 10 SCC 303 , and argued that the proceedings in the present case be quashed.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.

¶21

The Supreme Court in Gian Singh , supra, observed that quashing of complaint or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. The two powers are distinct and different although ultimate consequence may be same viz., acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment. 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. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or

¶22

Crlmp239/2016

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

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.

¶25

Indisputably, in the present case the accusedpetitioners and complainant-respondent have amicably settled their disputes and arrived at compromise and filed the compromise-deed supported by an affidavit, which has been duly attested and agreed to end the criminal proceedings in the case. Thus, there is no purpose to continue the criminal proceedings between the parties.

¶26

As per direction of this court dated 11.08.2016, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this court has recorded the statement of the complainant on

¶27

Crlmp239/2016

¶28

// 4 //

¶29

17.08.2016, wherein the complainant-respondent has stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties and they have settled the dispute amicably and that he does not want any action against the accused persons.

¶30

In view of the law so succinctly laid down by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above, and the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and filed compromise-deed before this court, there is no justification for allowing the proceedings in criminal case to continue.

¶31

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.10.2015 is set aside. The proceedings in Criminal Case No.779/2015 – State Vs. Babu Lal Sharma and Another pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (SD) and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan, are ordered to be dropped. Consequently, the F.I.R. No.542/2014, Police Station Bassi, for offence under Sections 435, 457, 34 of the IPC, is quashed.

¶32

This also disposes of Stay Application No.284/2016.

¶33

//Jaiman//46

Babu Lal Sharma and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Lal Sharma and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laakhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Vishnu Dutt Goyal and Anr. Vs Smt Kalpna Gupta @ Mamta

Om Prakash Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Vikas Sharma Vs Murti Shri Kishori Mohanji Maharaj and Anr.

Gilettee India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commi of Income Tax Anr.

Ramveer and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp