Puneet Kasliwal and others v State of Rajasthan and another
Rajasthan High Court
JAIPUR BENCH
4 February 2013
S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3825 of 2012
The Order of the Court was as follows :
1. In pursuance of the order passed today, the statement of petitioner No.1, Puneet Kasliwal and statement of respondent No.2, Ms. Swati Poddar, have been recorded by the Deputy Registrar [Judicial]. The same shall form part of the judicial record.
2. In the statement given by Smt. Swati Poddar, she has claimed that in 2007 she met Mr. Puneet Kasliwal. After making certain allegations about him, she admits to the fact that she has married Mr. Puneet Kasliwal. She informed her parents that she had married under duress. But she has not desired to stay with him.
She further informs this Court that both of them have entered into a compromise and both of them have filed an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the concerned Court. She does not wish to pursue the F.I.R., lodged by her, namely, F.I.R. No.1/2011, registered at Police Station, Bani Park, Jaipur City [South].
3. The statement of Mr. Puneet Kasliwal has also been recorded, wherein he merely informs this Court that when he came back from Bangkok, he discovered that a false case has been lodged against him.
However, even he is ad-idem that a compromise has been reached between the parties.
4. Both the learned Counsel are ad-idem thatbecause of the compromise reached between the parties, the learned trial Court had quashed the criminal proceedings with regard to Sections 509, 506, 420, 120-B and 328 I.P.C.
5. However, by order dated 22.08.2012, the learned Judge had refused to quash the criminal proceedings with regard to offences u/ss. 366 and 384 I.P.C. under Section 3/6 of the Women Atrocities [Prohibition] Act, 1986 and u/s. 67 of the Information Technology Act,2000.
6. Mr. Shivraj Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has relied on the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, [2012 (9) SC 427 2012 Indlaw SC 314] and has claimed that when a dispute is between the husband and the wife and in case they have settled their disputes, the Court can quash a criminal proceeding, as the dispute between the parties is basically personal and does not adversely affect the society.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
8. In the case of Gyan Singh 2012 Indlaw SC 314 [supra], the Hon’bleCourt 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.”
9. Therefore, considering the principles expounded by the Apex Court, considering the fact that both the parties have settled their dispute and considering the statement of of Ms. Swati Poddar, this Court quashes the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Judge [Fast Track] No.2, Jaipur in the form of Sessions Case No.87/2012, [State Vs. Puneet Kasliwal & Others]. The petitioners shall stand duly discharged from the aforementioned offences.
10. With these observations, this petition is, hereby, allowed.
11. Upon disposal of the main petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive; the same is also disposed of.
Petition disposed of
