Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
RAHUL & OTHERS V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER , decided on Tuesday, August 4, 2015.
[ In the High Court of Rajasthan, Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2112 of 2015. ] 04/08/2015
Judge(s) : VIJAY BISHNOI
Advocate(s) : Deepak Menaria. Rajesh Bhati, Public Prosecutor, R2, Love Jain.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  Bajaj Resources Limited & Another Versus Goyal Herbals Private Limited & Others,   24/11/2017.  

  State of Maharashtra & Another Versus Vijay Ghogre & Others,   15/11/2017.  

  Pravin Versus The State of Maharashtra,   10/11/2017.  

  On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Government of NCT of Delhi & Others,   26/10/2017.  

  B. Anas Babu & Others Versus Union of India, Rep. by The Engineer(Se),Civil Engineering Division, Department of Space & Others,   20/10/2017.  

  The Board of Control for Cricket In India, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Rahul Johri Versus S. Sreesanth & Others,   17/10/2017.  

  Neraj Devi Versus Aruna Kanwar & Others,   12/10/2017.  

  Tilak Singh & Others Versus The State,   07/10/2017.  

  Zakia Ahsan Jafri Versus Special Investigation Team - SIT & Another,   05/10/2017.  

  State of Madhya Pradesh & Another Versus Devendra & Others,   22/08/2017.  

  Amol @ Chintu & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O.,   18/08/2017.  

  The State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Health and Family Welfare, rep. By Secretary, Fort. St. George, Chennai & Others Versus V.S. Sai Sachin, minor rep. by his father and natural guardian & Others,   31/07/2017.  

  Kaziman Gurung Versus State of Sikkim,   26/07/2017.  

  Sterling and Wilson Private Limited & Another Versus Union of India represented by the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises & Others,   25/07/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Gautam Fulchand Shejawal & Others,   25/07/2017.  

  Jaghbir Singh & Others Versus P.K. Tripathi, Chief Secy., Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others,   10/07/2017.  

  Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Batala Versus Karam Singh & Others,   10/07/2017.  

  Chairman & Managing Director FCI & Others Versus Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Others,   06/07/2017.  

  Indira Vishnoi Versus The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi & Another,   09/06/2017.  

  Saroj Meena Versus Meera Bai Avasthi,   26/05/2017.  

  Rahul Malik Versus The State of Rajasthan & Another ,   17/05/2017.  

  M/s. Bharat Contracting Company Through Partner Mohandas, Through Legal Representative Rajesh Karna Versus Dwarkadas Agarwal ,   17/05/2017.  

  M/s. Shilpa Construction, Through - Amit Goyal, Sole Proprietor, Jaipur Versus Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Through Chief Executive Officer & Another,   11/05/2017.  

  M/s Rahul Texo Print, Through Its Proprietor Vinod Kumar Singhvi Versus Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through Its Chairman & Managing Director & Others,   11/05/2017.  

  All India Judges Association Versus Union of India & Others,   09/05/2017.  

  Govt. of NCT of Delhi Versus Manav Dharam Trust & Another,   04/05/2017.  

  Somnath Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Investigation Officer & Another,   03/05/2017.  

  Jasveer Singh & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others,   01/05/2017.  

  Bishan Devi Tr. Lrs. Versus Delhi Development Authority & Others,   18/04/2017.  

  Banwari Lal Gupta, District Alwar Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P. & Another,   06/04/2017.  

  Ram Kishan Fauji Versus State of Haryana & Others,   21/03/2017.  

  Dipak Das & Others Versus UOI & Others,   08/03/2017.  

  Raju Singh & Others Versus State & Others,   02/03/2017.  

  Narendra Kumar Rao Alias Parsiya Versus The State of Rajasthan,   02/03/2017.  

  Rahul Soni @ Diomond Soni Versus Nikita Soni,   28/02/2017.  

  Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons,   17/02/2017.  

  Balbeer Singh Shekhawat & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Another,   08/02/2017.  

  Swapnil S. Kumar, Nominee & Regional Sales Manager (Foods), Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Versus State of Rajasthan Through P.P.,   07/02/2017.  

  Mount Carmel School & Another Versus Delhi Development Authority & Others,   20/01/2017.  

  Vajia @ Vaje Ram Versus State of Rajasthan,   12/01/2017.  

  Tikam Chand & Another Versus Ram Chandra & Another ,   11/01/2017.  

  Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur-I, Jaipur & Others Versus V.K. Rana & Others ,   10/01/2017.  

  Pravin Dhondiram Chorge & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra,   10/01/2017.  

  Sanjat Suman Lenka Versus Medical Council of India, Represented by its Secretary & Others,   06/01/2017.  

  Committee of Management, Dadar Ashram Trust Society & Others Versus Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi & Others,   16/12/2016.  

  Sahi Ram Versus Bhanwari Devi & Others,   16/12/2016.  

  Yudhanshu Anugural Versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences & Others,   14/12/2016.  

  Lala Ram Sharma & Others Versus Rajasthan State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Another,   07/12/2016.  

  M/s. Sushee Ventures Private Limited Versus Rahul Agarwal & Others,   02/12/2016.  

  Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-I Versus M/s. Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd.,   01/12/2016.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  " 2015 (154) ALLINDCAS 773"  ==   " 2015 (33) RCR(Cri) 913"  ==   ""  







    1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against them before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2 Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No. 537/2014 (State of Rajasthan v. Rahul & Ors.) whereby the trial court vide order dated 08.04.2015 has attested the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC as the same is not compoundable.2. Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.2 the police has registered an FIR against the petitioners and started investigation. After investigation the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 406 323 and 498-A IPC in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioners for the aforesaid offence. During the pendency of the trial an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent No.2 while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and therefore the proceedings pending against the petitioners may be terminated. The trial court vide order dated 08.04.2015 allowed the parties to compound the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC however rejected the application so far it relates to compounding the offence under Section 498-A IPC.3. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the said proceedings against them.4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioners have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it the petitioners have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 IPC there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the parties have decided to live separately by mutual consent and in this regard an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 has been already filed by the parties and the same is pending adjudication before the concerned family court. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and decided to live separately and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioners in relation to offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.6. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. 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 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.7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioners and respondent no.2 have decided to live separately and in pursuance of that appropriate proceedings are also pending before the concerned family court there is no possibility of accused-petitioners being convicted in the case pending against them. When once the matrimonial disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending.8. 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 pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.9. Accordingly this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2 Udaipur in Criminal Case No.537/2014 (State of Rajasthan v. Rahul & Ors.) are hereby quashed.Stay petition stands disposed of.Petition Disposed of.