The High Court of Rajasthan quashed an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a matrimonial dispute over dowry and sexual harassment allegations after the parties reached a settlement.
FIR No.147/2016 of Police Station Sendra, District Pali for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 376/511, 313, 120-B IPC is 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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B.Criminal Second Stay No. 87 / 2017
IN
S.B. Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No. 3276 / 2016
All R/o No.58/5, Potti Naidu Street Extn., Vandawashi Town and Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Nishant Bora
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit – PP
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ravi Panwar
(2 of 5)
[RSTAY-87/2017]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order
11/01/2017
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.147/2016 dated 08.08.2016 of Police Station Sendra, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 376/511, 313, 120-B IPC.
In the instant case the respondent No.2-complainant has filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bar, District Pali under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same was forwarded to the concerned police station. The Police Station Sendra, District Pali has registered the impugned FIR against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, proceedings for the aforesaid offences are pending. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 and the petitioners have compromised the matter and resolved the matrimonial dispute between them amicably.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the matrimonial dispute has already been amicably settled between the parties, the impugned FIR lodged against the petitioners may kindly be quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has conceded that the dispute between the respondent No.2 and petitioners has already been settled.
(3 of 5)
[RSTAY-87/2017]
Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 09.01.2017, compromise entered between the parties have been verified by the Investigating Officer, who is investigating into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR and the factual report of this effect has submitted by learned Public Prosecutor.
Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
It is admitted that the matrimonial dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably and the same have been verified by the Investigating Officer. Today also learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR as the matrimonial dispute has already been resolved between the parties.
The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC–426 , has held as below:-
(4 of 5)
[RSTAY-87/2017]
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 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
(5 of 5)
[RSTAY-87/2017]
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.”
It is noticed that the dispute between the parties was a
matrimonial dispute, wherein the allegation of demand of dowry and sexual harassment against the petitioners has been levelled by the respondent No.2. It seems that the dispute was in the nature of matrimonial dispute and now settled between the parties.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, it is a fit case wherein the FIR pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra) and in the facts and circumstances as noted above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.147/2016 dated 08.08.2016 of Police Station Sendra, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 376/511, 313, 120-B IPC is hereby quashed.
Stay petition as well as the second stay petition are disposed
of.
The factual report be taken on record.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.
Abhishek Kumar S.No.164
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under IPC sections 498-A, 406, 323, 376/511, 313, 120-B arising from a matrimonial dispute can be quashed upon settlement?
Whether the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. permits quashing of FIR where the victim consents to settle the dispute amicably?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.Followed¶33
JT 2012(9) SC–426 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
B. Surendra Kumar
C. Bhawan Kumar
Vasantha Bai
B. Vishal Kumar
Surekha Surana
State of Rajasthan
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
