High Court allowed criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings under Section 498-A IPC based on an amended compromise deed and amicable settlement between the parties, citing Supreme Court guidelines on inherent jurisdiction.
Criminal case No. 1530/2009 under Section 498-A IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed.
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
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1592/ 2016
Dr. S.K. Goyal, S/o Shri Durga Prasad Ji, R/o 5B 14 Mahaveer Nagar, Vistar, Kota.
Versus
1.State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
__________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. PRS Rajawat For Respondent : Mr. R.R. Baisla-P.P. For Complainant : Mr. Samarth Sharma
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
14/02/2017
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the criminal proceedings in criminal case No. 1530/2009 under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have submitted that parties have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute. Now, petitioner & respondent No. 2 are residing together as husband and wife.
(2 of 4)
Respondent No. 2 is present in person and has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. She has admitted the genuineness of compromise deed placed on record dated 13.01.2016. Respondent No. 2 has stated that presently she is residing in her matrimonial home and has no objection, if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.
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
(3 of 4)
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 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
(4 of 4)
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, parties have amicably settled their dispute, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. In criminal case No. 1530/2009 under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA)J.
Sudha/80
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC can be quashed on account of an amicable settlement between the matrimonial parties.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings despite a compromise constitutes abuse of the process of the court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and AnotherExplained¶16
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. S.K. Goyal
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
Dr. Seem Goyal
S. Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
