IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER [PRECEDENT]. & Anr. SB Cr. [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION] [ACT] for quashing of FIR No. 903/2011 registered at Police Station J.D.A., Jaipur for offences under [SECTION] [ACT]. Date of Order : 26th November, 2013. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Mr [ENTITY] for petitioner. Mrs [ENTITY], Public Prosecutor. [ENTITY] for respondent no.2. BY THE COURT
This Misc. petition under [SECTION] [ACT] has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 903/2011 registered at Police Station J.D.A., Jaipur for offences under [SECTION] [ACT].
The short facts of case narrated in the petition are that the complainant lodged a report at PS-JDA, Jaipur on 8.11.2011 stating therein various allegations defined u/[SECTION] [ACT]. On the said report, an FIR No. 903/2011 has been registered at Police Station J.D.A., Jaipur for offences under [SECTION] [ACT].
After lodging of the FIR with the efforts of well-wishers of both the parties arrived to an amicable settlement. The dispute which has been narrated in the FIR arises out of commercial transaction and it can be brought to an end through composition of the offence, hence the prayer of the petitioner is that FIR be quashed.
The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 also agreeable to the same situation and both the parties have filed an agreement deed which was verified by the Deputy Registrar (Judl.).
The only contention of the present petitioner is that the matter has been compromised between the parties and hence the FIR should be quashed and reliance has been placed on [PRECEDENT] wherein it was held:
The fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise.
Further reliance has been placed on [PRECEDENT] wherein it was held:
On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.
In [PRECEDENT] it was held:
It was a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute has, it appears, been resolved by them. That being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now described by her as arising out of some misunderstanding and misconception will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eye witnesses, who are closely related to the complainant, are also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. [SECTION] [ACT] could, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the Courts below.
In [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court held:
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and [SECTION] of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under [SECTION] of the Code.
In [PRECEDENT] it was held:
In such bona fide circumstances, the power under [SECTION] may be exercised. Further, in view of the settlement arrived at between Respondent No. 2-the complainant and the appellant (Accused No. 3), there is no chance of recording a conviction insofar as the present appellant is concerned and the entire exercise of trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. Inasmuch as the matter has not reached the stage of trial, we are of the view that the High Court, by exercising the inherent power under [SECTION] of the Code even in offences which are not compoundable under [SECTION], may quash the prosecution. However, as observed in [PRECEDENT] (supra), the power under [SECTION] has to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. In other words, the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law.
In [PRECEDENT], it was held:
However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.
In view of the above, both the parties submit that the matter be quashed in terms of compromise.
Considering the fact that the offence alleged against the petitioner is more in the nature of personal wrong, rather than a threat to the society at large, considering the fact that parties have entered into a compromise, considering the statement given by the complainant mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that the offence under [SECTION] [ACT] should be compounded.
Consequently, the petition is hereby allowed and the impugned FIR No. 903/2011 registered at Police Station J.D.A., Jaipur for offences under [SECTION] [ACT] is hereby quashed and set aside.
([ENTITY]
Om135 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
[ENTITY]