Nitendra Singhal @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

S.B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 77/2018:

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that inadvertently typographical error has crept in the order dated 27.2.2017 passed in SBCRLMP

No. 4308/2015 and name of Police Station has been typed as ‘Jawahar Nagar’ whereas name of Police Station is ‘Jawahar Circle’.

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, the application is allowed. Registry is directed to correct the name of Police Station ‘Jawahar

Nagar’ as ‘Jawahar Circle’ in the records including in the order dated 27.2.2017. If required, necessary corrigendum be issued.

S.B. Cr. Misc. (Petition) No. 3644/2018:

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a co-ordinate Bench on the basis of compromise has quashed the FIR No. 842/2013

registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC, qua one of the accused Nitendra Singhal. The

order passed by the coordinate Bench on 27.2.2017 reads as under:-

“1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 842/2013, registered at Police Station Jawahar

Circle, Distt-Jaipur for the offence under Sections 420, 120-B IPC.

It is informed that after filing charge-sheet, during the trial, the petitioner and the complainant entered into a compromise which was placed before

the learned trial court praying to dispose of the matter on the basis of the compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Sandeep Jain hasrelied upon the judgment of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. [reported in 2012 (10)

SCC 303], the relevant portion of which is as follows:-

“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.â€​

Learned Public Prosecutor Shri S N Shekhawat and do notdispute the facts stated above. The complainant and petitioner are also present in person

and the complainant states that compromise has arrived between them and he does not want to prosecute the petitioner in the matter.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the recordof the case as well as precedent law cited, this Court is of the opinion that though the

offences are non-compoundable but since they do not affect the public at large and are in fact allegations between individuals, therefore, it would be in

the interest of justice to bring the litigation to an end.

Consequently, the instant petition is allowed. The FIR No.842/2013, registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, DisttJaipur for the offence under

Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC is hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner Shri Nitendra Singhal S/o Shri Ramvtar Singhal.â€​

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that now the complainant has affected compromise with all the accused and in the light of the

order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in SBCRLMP No. 4308/2015, which has been reproduced above, impugned FIR be quashed qua the present

petitioners also.

The complainant Rajesh Kumar Jain is present in the court. He has been identified by his counsel Mr. Shubham Jain. The learned counsel for the

complainant has vouchsafed the factum of compromise.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR is quashed in terms of the order dated 27.2.2017 passed in SBCRLMP No.

4308/2015.