Allowed

Mukesh, S/O- Ramdev, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2024CRLMP/4046/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of conviction and pending appeal under Section 482 CrPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that inherent powers allow quashing non-compoundable matrimonial offences upon compromise and resumption of marital life, securing ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2016 is set aside and proceedings of Criminal Appeal No.26/2016 are quashed.

Mukesh, S/O- Ramdev, Vs State of Rajasthan — Domestic Violence | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:2118]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4046/2022

¶4

Mukesh, S/o- Ramdev, R/o- Pranheda, P.s. Kekri, District Ajmer, Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

Smt. Rachana, W/o- Mukesh, R/o- Pranheda, P.s. Kekri, District Ajmer, Raj.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Pradeep Sharma for Mr. Manish Sharma
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. M.K. Sheoran, PP
		Mr. Atar Singh

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order

¶12

03/01/2024

¶13

The petitioner herein has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming the following reliefs:-

¶14

“The impugned order dated 21.02.2022 may kindly be modified and offence under Section 498-A of the IPC may kindly be compound and proceedings arising out of the criminal Appeal No.26/2016 titled as Mukesh V/S State of Raj. may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.2- wife of the petitioner filed a criminal complaint before the Police Station Kekri, District Ajmer against the petitioner, upon which, an FIR was registered at the Police Station Kekri, District Ajmer for the offences under Sections 323 & 498 of IPC.

¶16

(2 of 7) [CRLMP-4046/2022]

¶17

[2024:RJ-JP:2118]

¶18

After registration of the aforesaid FIR, the police conducted investigation in the matter and filed final report against the accused-petitioner for the aforesaid offences and on that basis criminal proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No.302/2013 were initiated against the petitioner. Vide judgment dated 06.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistate, No.1, Kekri, District Ajmer, the petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 323 & 498-A of IPC.

¶19

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 06.05.2016, the accused-petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before the court of Additional District and Session Judge, No.1, Kekri, District Ajmer. Vide order dated 19.05.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.26/2016, sentence of the petitioner was suspended by the appellate court.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the appeal, accused-petitioner and complainant/ respondent No.2 resolved their dispute amicably and entered into a compromise and the parties started living together as husband and wife.

¶21

On 21.02.2022, both the parties filed an application for compounding the offences under sections 323 & 498-A of IPC. It is stated in the application that the parties have resolved their dispute and entered into a compromise and complainant does not want to pursue the present matter.

¶22

Vide order dated 21.02.2022, learned lower appellate court partly accepted the application and permitted to compound the offence under Section 323 of IPC, but the prayer in respect of the

(3 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JP:2118]

[CRLMP-4046/2022]

offence under Section 498-A of IPC was not accepted on the ground that the said offence is non-compoundable.

¶27

In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition for quashing of the criminal Appeal No.26/2016 titled as ‘Mukesh V/S State of Rajasthan’ on the ground that the parties have resolved their dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 322. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made in the petition.

¶28

Learned counsel for the complainant accepts the factum of compromise and submits that the complainant has no objection, if this petition is allowed.

¶29

I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar and gone through the material available on record. 12. In the case of Ramgopal (supra), it has been held that the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstance of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready-reference:-

(4 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JP:2118]

[CRLMP-4046/2022]

"8. We have heard learned counsels for the Appellants and the State(s) at a considerable length. The questions of law concerning the power of a High Court to quash proceedings emanating from non-compoundable offences which have no impact or depraving effect on the society at large, on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the victim-complainant, are no longer res intergra and the same have been authoritatively settled by this Court in affirmative....

¶34

¶35

¶36

True it is that offences which are 'non-compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C. which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C. which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.

¶37

The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the offences are non-compoundable.

¶38

......The touchstone for exercising the extra-ordinary power under Section 482 CrPC would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of

[2024:RJ-JP:2118]

[CRLMP-4046/2022]

(5 of 7)

inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice.

¶43

We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

¶44

Further, in the case of B.S. Joshi & Anr. vs State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon'ble Apex Court has decided the issue to the effect that in cases where FIR or complaint is filed by the wife under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, whether the prayer of the husband for quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise can be decided on the ground that the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. The Apex Court decided the issue in affirmative holding therein that High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and in such circumstances Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code.

[2024:RJ-JP:2118]

[CRLMP-4046/2022]

(6 of 7)

In the instant matter, the petitioner has been convicted for offences under Sections 498A and 323 IPC vide judgment dated 06.05.2016 passed in Criminal Regular Case No.302/2013 by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kekri, against which, the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending adjudication. During pendency of the appeal, both the parties resolved their disputes and started living together. However, the learned lower appellate court partly accepted the application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and rejected the prayer of the petitioner for attesting/compounding the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

¶49

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties; considering that the petitioner and the complainant/respondent No.2 (husband and wife respectively) have resolved their dispute amicably and started living together as husband and wife as also finding that the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anrreported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934, State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ]; Ramgopal & Anr. vs State of Madhya Pradesh and B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra), I am of the view that it is a fit case for exercising this Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶50

Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is allowed. The judgment of conviction and Sentence dated 06.05.2016 passed in Criminal Regular Case No.302/2013 by learned Addl. Chief Judicial

[CRLMP-4046/2022]

[2024:RJ-JP:2118]

(7 of 7)

Magistrate No.1, Kekri is set aside. Consequently, the proceedings of Criminal Appeal No.26/2016 pending adjudication before learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.1, Kekri, Ajmer is also quashed.

¶55

Stay application is also disposed of.

¶56

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶57

303-Nirmala

Mukesh, S/O- Ramdev, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh, S/O- Ramdev, 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

Radhamohan Dhakad S/O Hukum Dhakad Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunita Choudhary W/O Sh. Kanaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamla Devi W/O Late Shri Chokharam Banjara Bhat Vs State of Rajasthan

Gulsher Mohmmad S/O Ali Sher, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Dangayach Son of Shri Sitaram Dangayach Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Rahisan D/O Jamshed, Vs State of Rajasthan