Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Lodged In Bengaluru Citing Settlement Between Parties
The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed a FIR lodged beyond its territorial jurisdiction- in Karnataka's Bengaluru, citing settlement between the married couple.Counsel appearing for the parties had relied upon Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2000) to argue that even if one of the impugned FIRs is registered out of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court,...
The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed a FIR lodged beyond its territorial jurisdiction- in Karnataka's Bengaluru, citing settlement between the married couple.
Counsel appearing for the parties had relied upon Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2000) to argue that even if one of the impugned FIRs is registered out of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the same can be quashed as the compromise has been effectuated within its jurisdiction, at Jaipur.
One FIR alleging 'intentional insult' was lodged against the husband in Bengaluru, his place of work, and another for 'cruelty' at Jaipur (couple's place of permanent residence).
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain, while quashing both the FIRs, cited a three-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v State of Punjab (2012) to hold that subject to nature of dispute, in this case a matrimonial one, a case is eminently suitable to be considered for quashing of criminal proceedings, if the parties have buried the hatchet.
In Gian Singh (supra), the Top Court had said,
"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...Heinous and serious offences...cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute...But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour 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..."
Title: Astha Gupta & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 160