MUNSHI RAM TUTLANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Criminal Misc. Petitions have been filed to seek quashing of criminal proceedings in regard to the offence registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.'). in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 535/2008, order dated 14.7.2006 has been challenged. In the order dated 14.7.2006 though the Court below acquitted the accused from the offence under Sections 420 I.P.C. based on compromise as said offence is compoundable, however, refused to compound the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B I.P.C. Thus, aggrieved by order dated 14.7.2006 as well as continuous of the criminal proceedings despite of the compromise between the parties, the petitioners have preferred these criminal misc. petitions.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that a case was registered at Police Station Jalupura, Jaipur in regard to a property of hotel Kohinoor for which an agreement was made between the parties. The hotel was given only for management to the accused, but then the accused projected it to be a sale on a consideration and a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/ - were shown to have been accepted for sale. According to the complainant, document pertaining to the sale of the property under the agreement and receipt was forged. Hence, pursuant to the aforesaid allegation case was registered. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, a settlement was arrived at between the parties wherein reference of certain civil disputes between the parties apart from the criminal case has been made. The reference of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 29.4.2004 has also been made therein. Thus, apart from the pendency of the criminal case, civil litigation was also pending between the parties in regard to the same property. On arriving at a settlement between the parties, a joint application was made by both the parties for dropping of the criminal proceedings as it was given out that the complainant is not intend to pursue the criminal proceedings further. The Court below accepted the application so far as offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is concerned, but refused to recognize compromise in regard to offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B I.P.C as those offences are not compoundable.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in 2003 R.C.C. (SC) 400. The reliance has further been placed on the judgment of this Court specifically on the judgment in the case of Majlis and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and other tagged cases reported in 2007(1) Cri.L.R. 345 apart from the judgment in the case of Amit Kumar Pareek and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. report in 2006Cri.L.R. 1665. The High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is having inherent powers, thus the riders provided under Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot come in the way more specifically when the matter has been compromised between the parties.