Ram Prakash Malpani v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Judgment

:: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.801/2009 Ram Prakash Malpani & Anr. vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Date of Judgment :: 21st November, 2012. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr.Mahaveer Vishnoi for Mr.Rakesh Arora, for petitioner.

Mr.KK Rawal, PP. Mr.VD Gaur for Mr.OP Mehta, for the respondent no.2. BY THE COURT : ... Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 25.2.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class No.3, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.507/2008 whereby the application for compromise filed by the petitioners and the respondent no.2/complainant has been accepted to the extent of the SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.801/2009 Ram Prakash Malpani & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2) offence under Section 420 IPC but has been rejected for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class No.3, Jodhpur with the allegation that he and his wife had purchased a piece of land from Khasra No.230 of Village Khokhariya, Tehsil Jodhpur. It was alleged that the land was purchased from the khatedar tenants namely, Bhaga Ram, Rugha Ram and Sayari Devi. After purchasing the land from the aforesaid persons, as per the complainant, he and his wife sold the land to one Bhanwar Singh Shekhawat resident of 260, Hanwant A, B.J.S., Jodhpur by executing a power of attorney and an agreement to sell in his favour. As per the complainant, at the time of execution of the documents i.e. agreement to sell and power of attorney, the possession of the land was handed over to the Bhanwar Singh. The complainant has come out with a specific case that he never executed any other power of attorney and did not sell his property to anybody apart from Bhanwar Singh. It is alleged that one Om Prakash Ojha of Pali came to the complainant's house on 3.5.2006 and showed him a power of attorney purported to have been executed by the complainant and his wife in favour of Ram Prakash Malpani SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.801/2009 Ram Prakash Malpani & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (3) on 15.2.1999 and implored him as to how after giving power of attorney to Ram Prakash, the complainant had sold the land to Bhanwar Singh. Shri Om Prakash Ojha also told the complainant that he had purchased the property from Ram Prakash Malpani on the strength of power of attorney possessed by him but when he went to the plot, Bhanwar Singh met him and showed him the subsequent power of attorney executed by the complainant in his favour. The complainant has further claimed that on seeing the power of attorney in possession of Om Prakash Ojha, he became shocked because he had never sold the land to Ram Prakash and also had never executed any power of attorney in his favour on 15.2.1999 or on any other date. The complainant alleged that the power of attorney possessed by Ram Prakash was a forged document. A photocopy thereof was provided to the complainant by Om Prakash Ojha and thereafter, the complainant went and confronted Ram Prakash with the said power of attorney and told him about the document being forged. Ram Prakash could not answer the complainant's allegations on which the complainant filed the complaint. The complaint was sent for investigation to the Police Station, Udai Mandir, Jodhpur where FIR No.198/2006 was registered and investigation commenced. The police upon completion of investigation, SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.801/2009 Ram Prakash Malpani & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (4) filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. During the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court, wiser counsel prevailed and the parties i.e. accused and the complainant entered into compromise. Accordingly, they filed an application before the trial court seeking compounding of the offences. The trial court vide order dated 25.2.2009 accepted the compromise application to the extent of the offence under Section 420 IPC but rejected the same for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. Now the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of whole of the proceedings of the complaint by way of the instant misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 both submitted that the parties have decided to settle their dispute by way of mutual compromise. They submit that essentially, the dispute was of a private nature and as the compromise has been genuinely arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the criminal case pending against the petitioners any further because it is not likely to result into the conviction of the accused. They, therefore, prayed that the misc. petition be accepted and the SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.801/2009 Ram Prakash Malpani & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (5) proceedings of the criminal case going on against the accused be quashed. Learned P.P. opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the documents, particularly, the charge-sheet and the proceedings of the court below, it is apparent that a mutual and a voluntary compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The complainant and the accused both have approached the court below and have filed application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and have jointly prayed for dropping of the proceedings by way of compromise. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC-426 has held that the prosecution relating to disputes of private nature where the offences are essentially arising from a dispute of civil flavour can be quashed even if involving non-compoundable offences. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as below :- “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 SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.801/2009 Ram Prakash Malpani & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (6) 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 SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.801/2009 Ram Prakash Malpani & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (7) settlement complete 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 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.” In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering the fact that essentially the dispute between the parties in relation to a claim and counter claim over the property and also considering the fact that the parties to the lis have voluntarily entered into a compromise, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. In the background of the aforesaid discussion, there is hardly any possibility of the petitioners being convicted in the criminal case. In view of the above discussion, the instant misc. SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.801/2009 Ram Prakash Malpani & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (8) petition is allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.507/2008 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class No.3, Jodhpur are hereby quashed on the basis of the compromise. Stay petition is also disposed of. (SANDEEP MEHTA), J. S.Phophaliya