Two cross FIRs between neighbors were quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court found the dispute, arising from a wall construction, was civil in nature and amicably settled. Relying on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, the Court held continuation was abuse of process.
FIRs 423/2016 and 422/2016 quashed; stay petition disposed of.
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 Misc(Pet.) No. 3707 / 2016
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC(PET.) No. 3657 / 2016
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
(2 of 6)
[CRLMP-3707/2016]
IN SB CRLMP No.3707/2016
For Petitioners : Mr. H.S. Bishnoi For Respondent No.1 : Mr. M.S. Panwar – PP
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ramesh Purohit and Mr. Gopal Singh
IN SB CRLMP No.3657/2016
For Petitioners : Mr. Ramesh Purohit and Mr. Gopal Singh For Respondent No.1 : Mr. M.S. Panwar – PP For Respondent No.2 : Mr. H.S. Bishnoi
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order
17/02/2017
These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by their respective petitioners with a prayer for quashing of two cross FIRs being FIR Nos.423/2016 and 422/2016 of Police Station Kotwali, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 451, 336 and 323 IPC lodged at the instant of respondent No.2-complainant - Om Prakash and Heera Lal respectively.
In these criminal misc. petitions, the respondent No.2complainants - Om Prakash and Heera Lal have lodged two cross FIRs at Police Station Kotwali, District Pali against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.
It is submitted by learned counsels for the petitioners that on the complaints filed on behalf of the respondent No.2complainants - Om Prakash and Heera Lal, proceedings for the
(3 of 6)
[CRLMP-3707/2016]
aforesaid offences are pending against the petitioners. It is further contended by learned counsels for the petitioners that the parties have compromised the matters and resolved the dispute between them amicably.
Learned counsels for the petitioners have argued that since the dispute has already been amicably settled between the parties the impugned FIRs lodged against the petitioners may kindly be quashed.
Learned counsels for the respondent No.2-complainants -Om Prakash and Heera Lal have conceded that the dispute between the parties has already been settled.
Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 14.12.2016, the parties have appeared before the concerned Investigating Officer for verification of their compromise.
Learned Public Prosecutor has informed this Court that the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the Investigating Officer.
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 dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably and the learned Public Prosecutor has informed that the same has been verified by the Investigating Officer.
Today also learned counsels for the respondent No.2complainants - Om Prakash and Heera Lal have categorically
(4 of 6)
[CRLMP-3707/2016]
submitted that the respondent No.2-complainants - Om Prakash and Heera Lal do not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIRs as the 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:-
“57. 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 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
(5 of 6)
[CRLMP-3707/2016]
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 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 in relation to construction of a wall and for the same incident two cross FIRs have been lodged. It seems that the parties belong to one common pedigree and neighbours and the dispute between them has now been settled amicably.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the cases and looking to the fact that the dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably and the respondent No.2-
(6 of 6)
[CRLMP-3707/2016]
complainants - Om Prakash and Heera Lal do not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIRs, it is a fit case wherein the FIRs 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 these criminal misc. petitions are allowed and the FIR Nos.423/2016 and 422/2016 of Police Station Kotwali, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 451, 336 and 323 IPC are hereby quashed.
Stay petition is disposed of.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.
Abhishek Kumar S.Nos.34-35
2 issues framed by the court
Whether FIRs can be quashed in merits dispute cases upon written compromise between parties.
Whether settled family/neighbor dispute with civil character warrants quashing of criminal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.Followed¶50
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. JT 2012(9) SC–426 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Laxman and Ors.
State of Rajasthan
Om Prakash and Heera Lal
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
