Facts of the Case

The petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 255/2022 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 365 and 384 IPC. The principal ground urged for quashing was that the parties had entered into a compromise. Respondent No. 4, the informant, was present before the Court and supported the factum of compromise.

According to the allegations recorded in the FIR, the complainant was sitting with his friend, Jitendra Khandelwal, when a four-wheeler stopped near them. The complainant was allegedly told that the persons in the vehicle were from the GST Department. He was then taken in the vehicle. During the journey, he was allegedly threatened at gunpoint, assaulted and asked to pay ₹25 lakh.

The FIR further alleged that, due to fear of losing his life, the complainant agreed to pay ₹2 lakh. The accused persons allegedly demanded immediate payment, following which the complainant contacted Jitendra Khandelwal, who brought ₹2 lakh, which was allegedly snatched by the accused persons. The accused allegedly demanded a further ₹5 lakh, and Jitendra thereafter brought ₹4.80 lakh, which was also allegedly taken away.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the High Court were:

  1. Whether FIR No. 255/2022 for offences under Sections 323, 365 and 384 IPC could be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC merely because the petitioner and the complainant had entered into a compromise.
  2. Whether allegations involving kidnapping, threats at gunpoint, assault and compelling payment of extortion money were of such serious nature and social impact that the criminal proceedings should continue despite settlement between the parties.
  3. Whether the High Court should exercise its wide inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in relation to offences that affect society at large, even where the informant supports the compromise.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR primarily on the ground that a compromise had been reached between the parties.

The petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana vs State of Gujarat & Another, Criminal Appeal No. 1040/2012, disposed of on 20 July 2012, in support of the plea for quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise.

The petitioner’s case was further supported factually by the presence of Respondent No. 4, the informant, before the Court, who confirmed the factum of compromise.

Respondent’s Arguments

The order does not record a separately detailed argument of the State or other respondents in extended form. However, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations contained in the FIR and treated them as offences having a social impact.

The Court specifically observed that the nature of the allegations disclosed an offence prevalent in society and carrying societal consequences that could not be ignored merely because the immediate parties had compromised the matter.

Court Order / Findings

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition for quashing of the FIR.

The Court found that the allegations involved kidnapping and compelling the complainant, by putting him in fear of death, to make payment of extortion money, which according to the allegations was actually paid. In view of the gravity and social impact of such accusations, the Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC in favour of quashing.

The Court relied upon the principle stated by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, namely that although the power under Section 482 CrPC is wide enough in appropriate circumstances concerning non-compoundable offences under Section 320 CrPC, heinous offences and offences affecting society at large should not be encouraged to be compromised.

Accordingly, the High Court held that it was not inclined to allow the petition, dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition and directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial.

Important Clarification

This judgment clarifies that a compromise between an accused and a complainant does not automatically entitle the accused to quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC.

The decisive consideration is the nature, gravity and social impact of the alleged offence. Where allegations involve kidnapping, threats at gunpoint, fear of death and actual extraction of extortion money, the matter may transcend a purely private dispute between individuals. In such circumstances, the Court may refuse quashing even when the informant personally appears and supports the compromise.

The ruling also highlights the distinction between:

  • Compounding of offences under Section 320 CrPC, which is governed by the statutory framework; and
  • Quashing under Section 482 CrPC, which involves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction and requires careful consideration of the nature and seriousness of the offence.

Therefore, the existence of a settlement is a relevant factor, but it is not conclusive where the alleged conduct is heinous or has wider societal impact.

Sections Involved

Section 323 IPC – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt:
This provision concerns punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.

Section 365 IPC – Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person:
This provision addresses kidnapping or abduction carried out with the intention of secretly and wrongfully confining a person.

Section 384 IPC – Punishment for extortion:
This provision prescribes punishment for the offence of extortion.

Section 482 CrPC – Saving of inherent powers of High Court:
This provision preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to orders under the CrPC, prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise secure the ends of justice.

Section 320 CrPC – Compounding of offences:
This provision governs the statutory compounding of specified criminal offences and is relevant to the distinction between statutory compounding and quashing through inherent jurisdiction.

Link to Download the Order-https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783493205_1511compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.