Deepak Singh v. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p

jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj ihB] t;iqj svkn'k S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 6740 / 2017 Deepak Singh S/o Shri Dalip Singh, Aged About 48 Years,R/o Ward No. 20, Near Old Income Tax Office, Churu,Rajasthan. ----Accused/Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P. 2. Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Deepak Singh, Aged About 38Years, R/o House No. B-51, Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Complainant/Respondents vkns'k fnukad % 23-01-2018 ZUekuuh; ;k;kf/kifr Jh cuokjhyky 'kek Jh ,e ,l jk?ko] vf/koDrk& ;kph dh vksj lsAJh vyknhu [kku] yksd vfHk;kstdAJh fodkl dkcjk] vf/koDrk&v;kph dh vksj lsA ;kph vfHk;qDr nhidflag us ;g ;kfpdk /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;klafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr izLrqr dj mlds fo:) iqfyl Fkkuk efgykFkkuk¼if'pe½] t;iqj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 65@2012 vijk/kvUrxZr /kkjk 498,] 406] 323] 506 rFkk 504 Hkk-na-la-] ftlesa fd cknvuqla/kku ;kph vfHk;qDr ds fo:) /kkjk 498, rFkk 406 Hkk-na-la- ds laca/k esavkjksi i= lacaf/kr U;k;ky; egkuxj eftLVªsV dze&20] t;iqj egkuxj dsle{k vkjksi i= la[;k 19@2012 fnukad 20-06-2012 dks is'k fd;k x;k gS]leLr dk;Zokgh dks jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dhgSA fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph us fuosnu fd;k gS fd v;kph la[;k&2ifjokfn;k gS rFkk ;kph ifjokfn;k dk ifr gSA nksuksa ds e/; oSokfgd laca/kksadks ysdj fookn gS ftlesa jkthukek gks pqdk gSA le>kSrk ikfjokfjdU;k;ky; dze&1] t;iqj esa fnukad 28-10-2017 dks is'k fd;k tk pqdk gSAmUgksaus fuosnu fd;k gS fd nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; ijLij lgefr ls fookg&foPNsn Hkh gks pqdk gSA mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky;ds le{k jkthukek izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk gS ftls /kkjk 406 Hkk-na-la- dsvijk/k ds Lrj rd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk Lohdkj fd;k tkdj ;kphvfHk;qDr dks mDr /kkjk esa nks"keqDr dj fn;k gS] ijUrq /kkjk 498, Hkk-na-la-jkthukek ;ksX; ugha gksus ds dkj.k bl laca/k esa jkthukek rLnhd ugha fd;ktk ldkA mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k fd nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; fookn futh izd`frdk gS rFkk oSokfgd laca/kksa dks ysdj fookn gS ftlesa jkthukek gks tkus dsckn vc /kkjk 498, Hkk-na-la- ds vijk/k esa vkijkf/kd dk;Zokgh dks yafcr j[kstkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA mUgksaus ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd ;kphvfHk;qDr rFkk v;kph ifjokfn;k vkt U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr gSaA ;kphvfHk;qDr dks os Lo;a ifgpkurs gSa rFkk v;kph la[;k&2 ifjokfn;k dks mudsvf/koDRkk Jh fodkl dkcjk f'kuk[r djrs gSaA vr% ;kfpdk Lohdkj dhtkdj ;kph ds fo:) yafcr mDr vkijkf/kd izdj.k dh leLr dk;Zokghdks fujLr fd;k tkosA v;kph la[;k&2 ifjokfn;k ds vf/koDRkk Jh fodkl dkcjk us HkhmDr rdksZa dk leFkZu djrs gq, ;kfpdk Lohdkj fd;s tkus esa vukifRrtkfgj dhA fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd us Hkh jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij vkijkf/kdizdj.k dh dk;Zokgh dks lekIr djus esa vukifRr tkfgj dhA lquk x;kA mHk; i{k ds rdksaZ ij fopkj fd;k x;kA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Kku flag cuke iatkc jkT; ¼2012½10 ,l-lh-lh- 303 esa fuEu izdkj ls vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& The position that emerges from the abovediscussion can be summarised thus: the powerof the High Court in quashing a criminalproceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise ofits inherent jurisdiction is distinct and differentfrom the power given to a criminal court forcompounding the offences under Section 320ofthe Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitudewith no statutory limitation but it has to beexercised in accord with the guidelineengrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure theends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of theprocess of any Court. In what cases power toquash the criminal proceeding or complaint orF.I.R may be exercised where the offender andvictim have settled their dispute would dependon the facts and circumstances of each case The position that emerges from the abovediscussion can be summarised thus: the powerof the High Court in quashing a criminalproceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise ofits inherent jurisdiction is distinct and differentfrom the power given to a criminal court forcompounding the offences under Section 320ofthe Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitudewith no statutory limitation but it has to beexercised in accord with the guidelineengrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure theends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of theprocess of any Court. In what cases power toquash the criminal proceeding or complaint orF.I.R may be exercised where the offender andvictim have settled their dispute would dependon the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However,before exercise of such power, the High Courtmust have due regard to the nature and gravityof the crime. Heinous and serious offences ofmental depravity or offences like murder, rape,dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed eventhough the victim or victim’s family and theoffender have settled the dispute. Such offencesare not private in nature and have seriousimpact on society. Similarly, any compromisebetween the victim and offender in relation tothe offences under special statutes likePrevention of Corruption Act or the offencescommitted by public servants while working inthat capacity etc; cannot provide for any basisfor quashing criminal proceedings involvingsuch offences. But the criminal cases havingoverwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civilflavour stand on different footing for thepurposes of quashing, particularly the offencesarising from commercial, financial, mercantile,civil, partnership or such like transactions orthe offences arising out of matrimony relatingto dowry, etc. or the family disputes where thewrong is basically private or personal innature and the parties have resolved theirentire dispute. In this category of cases, HighCourt may quash criminal proceedings if in itsview, because of the compromise between theoffender and victim, the possibility ofconviction is remote and bleak andcontinuation of criminal case would putaccused to great oppression and prejudice andextreme injustice would be caused to him bynot quashing the criminal case despite full andcomplete settlement and compromise with thevictim. In other words, the High Court mustconsider whether it would be unfair orcontrary to the interest of justice to continuewith the criminal proceeding or continuation ofthe criminal proceeding would tantamount toabuse of process of law despite settlement andcompromise between the victim and wrongdoerand whether to secure the ends of justice, it isappropriate that criminal case is put to an endand if the answer to the above question(s) is inaffirmative, the High Court shall be well withinits jurisdiction to quash the criminalproceeding. gLrxr izdj.k esa i{kdkjksa ds e/; oSokfgd laca/kksa dks ysdj fookn gSftlesa nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; jkthukek gks pqdk gS rFkk jkthukek fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds }kjk rLnhd fd;k tk pqdk gS rFkk jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij/kkjk 406 Hkk-na-la- ds vijk/k esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk nks"keqDr fd;k tkpqdk gSA vr% mijksDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds ifjizs{; esa mDr dk;Zokgh dksyafcr j[ks tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA rnuqlkj ;g ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkdj ;kph vfHk;qDr nhid flagds fo:) fopkj.k U;k;ky; egkuxj eftLVªsV dze&20] t;iqj egkuxjds ;gka yafcr vkijkf/kd izdj.k la[;k 509@2017 ¼izFke lwpuk fjiksVZla[;k 65@2012½ vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 498,] 406 Hkk-na-la- iqfyl Fkkukefgyk Fkkuk ¼if'pe½] t;iqj] ftlesa fd orZeku esa /kkjk 498, Hkk-na-la- dhdk;Zokgh yafcr gS] dh dk;Zokgh dks jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij lekIr fd;ktkrk gSA rnuqlkj ;g ;kfpdk fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA feRry@lh&9@68 ¼cuokjh yky 'kekZ½U;k;kf/kifr