Rajasthan High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. following a fair compromise and acquittal on some charges, deeming further trial as unfair and against the ends of justice.
Criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 3197/2016 arising from FIR No. 399/2014 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:21377]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1941/2024
Jitendra Acharya S/o Shri Jasraj Acharya, Aged About 46 Years, B/c Brahman, R/o House No. 259, Acharya Ka Mohalla, Chandana Bhakhar, Chand Pole, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Harish Jangid |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Anil Anwala for R-2 |
| Mr. Laxman Solanki,P.P. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
13/05/2024
[2024:RJ-JD:21377]
[CRLMP-1941/2024]
(2 of 4)
“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
(3 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JD:21377]
[CRLMP-1941/2024]
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 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.”
(4 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JD:21377]
[CRLMP-1941/2024]
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.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J
265-RP/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the accused and victim have settled the dispute and the possibility of conviction for remaining charges is remote.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.Relied on¶20
JT 2012(9) SC – 426 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
JITENDRA ACHARYA
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
YUVRAJ SINGH SANDU
YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
