Ashok Kumar @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Anr

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending

against him before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadul Shahar, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court')

in Criminal Regular Case No.464/2008 (C.I.S. No.1047/2014) â€" State Vs. Ashok Kumar whereby, the trial court vide order dated 9.9.2017 has

attested the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offences punishable

under Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC as the same are not compoundable.

Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, the Police Station Lalgarh Jatan, District Sri Ganganagar has

registered an FIR No.69/1996 against the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner took a loan against Bus No.RJ-13-P-0603 and that was

hypothecated with the bank but without taking permission or re-payment of loan, sold it to one Puran Chand, through an agreement stating that the

amount of bank has been repaid, but in fact the amount was not repaid till 5.3.1996 i.e. the day of execution of agreement and, thus, forging letter in

the name of respondent No.2 â€" complainant obtained a duplicate Registration Certificate.

After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 406, 465, 468 and 471 IPC in the Court of

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadul Shahar, District Sri Ganganagar wherein, the trial is pending against the petitioner. During the pendency of

the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 while stating that both the parties have entered into

compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be terminated. The learned trial court vide order dated 9.9.2017

allowed the parties to compound the offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C., however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding

the offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him The learned counsel for the

petitioner has argued that as the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the

petitioner has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the

offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the

petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the

parties.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and the respondent No.2 does not

want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 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 â€" 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 ofÂ

Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis forÂ

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 theÂ

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.â€​

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the parties have already entered into compromise, there is no

possibility of petitioner being convicted in the case pending against 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.

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 petitioner for the offences punishable under

Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadul Shahar, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Regular

Case No.464/2008 (C.I.S. No.1047/2014) â€" State Vs. Ashok Kumar are hereby quashed.