w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Jagdish Chandra Panwar & Another v/s State, Through PP & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- JAGDISH AND COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U63040NL1996PTC004781

Company & Directors' Information:- R K CHANDRA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36911WB1989PTC046753

Company & Directors' Information:- JAGDISH CHANDRA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52520MP1981PTC001827

Company & Directors' Information:- H CHANDRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65990MH1952PTC008894

Company & Directors' Information:- H C CHANDRA & CO. PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U20231WB1957PTC023337

Company & Directors' Information:- CHANDRA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U74999KL1952PTC000280

Company & Directors' Information:- R. CHANDRA LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1953PLC009175

    Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 378 of 2020

    Decided On, 27 January 2020

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

    For the Petitioners: D.S. Udawat, Advocate. For the Respondents: S.S. Rajpurohit, PP, R2, B.S. Mertiya, Advocate.



Judgment Text

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 the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No. 139/2011 whereby, the trial court vide order dated 14.01.2020 attested the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 193, 120-B IPC as the same is not compoundable.Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, the Police Station Siriyari, Pali has registered an FIR No.63/2010 against the petitioners. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 120-B IPC before the trail court where the trial is pending against the petitioners. 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 14.01.2020 allowed the parties to compound the offence under Section 420 I.P.C., however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the offences under Section 467, 468, 471, 193, 120- B IPC.The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the said proceedings against them.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 has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 420 I.P.C., there is no possibility of their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 193, 120-B IPC.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 predominatingly 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 cr

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

iminal proceeding.”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.Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 193, 120-B IPC in Criminal Regular Case No. 139/2011 are hereby quashed.
O R