Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 406 and 498-A – Criminal Procedure Code,1860 - Section 482 - Attested compromise for Offence - Conviction - Heinous and serious Offences - Mental Depravity or Offences - Offence of Murder - Respondent No. 2 Police Station has registered an FIR against the petitioner - After investigation police filed charge sheet against petitioner for offence under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. in trial court wherein trial is pending against petitioner for aforesaid offences - During pendency of trial a joint application was preferred on behalf of petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 while stating that both parties have entered into compromise and therefore proceedings pending against petitioner may be terminated - Learned trial court vide order allowed parties to compound offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C - However rejected application so far as it relates to compounding offence - Held, In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend of each case and no category can be prescribed - However before exercise of such power High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of crime - Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder rape dacoity etc - Cannot be fittingly quashed even though victim or victim's family and offender have settled dispute - Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society - Similarly any compromise between victim and offender in relation to offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or 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 flavor stand on different footing for purposes of quashing, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile civil partnership or such like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc family disputes where wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute - Criminal misc. Petition is Allowed.
Catch Words :Cases Referred:
Advocate Appeared :For the Appellant : Deepak Menaria.For the Respondents : Mahipal Bishnoi, Praveen Bhati.
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
1. 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 the petitioner before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Regular Case No. 2688/2020, State of Rajasthan vs. Harshit Kothari (arising out of FIR No. 20/2020 of Police Station, Mahila Thana, District Udaipur), whereby the trial court vide order dated 19.8.2021 has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under Section 406 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 Station Mahila Thana, Udaipur has registered an FIR No. 20/2020 against the petitioner. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offence under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. in the trial court wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. During the pendency of the trial, a joint 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 19.8.2021 allowed the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. however, rejected the application so far as it relates to compounding the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C.
3. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him.
4. 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 b