- (1.) PETITIONER No.1, Sunil, petitioner No.2, Ramesh, and petitioner No.3, Mukesh Chopra are present in person before this Court. Complainant-non-petitioner, Bholuram Chopra, is also present in person before this Court. Mr. Sunil has submitted his Driving Licence before this Court, and Mr. Bholuram Ram has submitted his Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India. Mr. Bholuram informs this Court that after he had lodged a F.I.R. against the petitioners, the dispute between him, and the petitioners has been settled outside the Court. Therefore, he no longer wishes to pursue the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Civil Judge [Junior Division] & Metropolitan Magistrate, No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur. According to him, on an application filed on the basis of the compromise before the learned Magistrate, while the learned Magistrate has compounded the offence under Section 323 and 341 I.P.C., he has refused to compound the offence under Section 143 I.P.C. Therefore, both the parties pray that on the basis of the compromise, the criminal proceedings should be set aside.
(2.) IN the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another [2012 (9) SCC 427], the Hon'ble Court had answered the reference as under :- 54. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. 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." Considering the fact that the parties have compromised, considering the fact that the complainant no longer wishes to pursue the criminal proceedings initiated by him, and considering the principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mentioned above, this Court quashes the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Civil Judge [Junior Division] & Metropolitan Magistrate, No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur in the form of Criminal Case No.537/2009 [262/2013] qua the petitioners. The petitioners shall stand duly discharged from the offence under Section 143 I.P.C.
(3.) WITH these observations, this petition is, hereby, allowed.;