Allowed

Priyanka Sharma Daughter of Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Nov 2022CRLMP/9439/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed to quash FIR No.405/2022 registered for cheating, cheating by dishonest inducement, and criminal breach of trust. The Court relied on the Supreme Court guideline in Gian Singh case to quash proceedings where a dispute has been amicably settled due to the civil nature of the case and absence of conviction possibility.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.405/2022 and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 420, 406, 384, 312 of IPC against the petitioner were quashed.

Priyanka Sharma Daughter of Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9439/2022

¶3

Priyanka Sharma Daughter Of Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vill. Jhareda, Tehsil Hindon, District Karauli (Raj).

¶4

----Petitioner/accused

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

Station House Offiecr, Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur- South.

¶8

Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur - South.

¶9

Deepak Kumar Gupta Son Of Mahesh Chand Gupta, R/o A-116, Awadhpuri-Ii, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur. ... (complainant)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Atar Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sher Singh Mahla, PP Ms.Meeta Pareek, Adv.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶13

Order

¶14

10/11/2022

¶15

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the FIR No.405/2022 registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur (South) for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 384, 312 of IPC.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant-respondent No.4 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 384, 312 of IPC. It is also

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CRLMP-9439/2022]

¶19

argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and resolved their dispute amicably and the respondent No.4 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 384, 312 of IPC.

¶21

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:-

¶22

“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

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CRLMP-9439/2022]

¶25

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 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.”

¶26

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.4 have settled their dispute amicably, there is no possibility of accused-petitioner being convicted in the case pending against him. When once the disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending.

¶27

Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[CRLMP-9439/2022]

¶30

pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶31

Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.405/2022 registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur

¶32

(South) and all consequential proceedings for offence under Sections 420, 406, 384, 312 of IPC against the petitioner are

¶33

hereby quashed.

¶34

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶35

NK/122

Priyanka Sharma Daughter of Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Sharma Daughter of Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, v. State of Rajasthan

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

Rahul Son of Shri Ramesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Prajapati Vishnu Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishal Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Yogita Pareek Wife of Shri Kamal Kishor Pareek, Vs State of Rajasthan

Pintu Saini Son of Shri Ramphool Saini, Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Surbhi Wife of Shri Roshan Lal Daughter of Shri Subhash Chand Kumawat, Vs State of Rajasthan