Allowing Quashing Of Non-Compoundable Offences Like Kidnapping, Theft Based On Compromise Will Set 'Dangerous Precedent': Rajasthan HC
While refusing to quash an FIR registered for non-compoundable offences of kidnapping, theft after the parties had entered into an amicable settlement, the Rajasthan High Court underscored that permitting quashing of such cases based on compromise would undermine the very purpose of criminal law and embolden offenders.In doing so the court underscored that compounding of such offences would set...
While refusing to quash an FIR registered for non-compoundable offences of kidnapping, theft after the parties had entered into an amicable settlement, the Rajasthan High Court underscored that permitting quashing of such cases based on compromise would undermine the very purpose of criminal law and embolden offenders.
In doing so the court underscored that compounding of such offences would set a "dangerous precedent" wherein accused can evade justice through monetary settlements.
Justice Farjand Ali observed that the investigation in the matter had established a "prima facie" case against the accused wherein the allegations were backed by medical evidences & witness testimonies. It said:
"The mere fact that the complainant has entered into a settlement with the accused does not absolve them of their criminal liability, especially when the offences are non compoundable. Permitting quashing of such cases on the basis of compromise would undermine the very purpose of criminal law and embolden offenders...The offences under Sections 365 and 382 IPC fall under the category of non-compoundable offences as per Section 320 CrPC. The rationale behind this classification is to ensure that grave offences affecting public order, personal liberty, and security are not compromised for private settlements. Compounding of such offences would set a dangerous precedent, allowing accused persons to evade justice through monetary settlements or coercive tactics. The Supreme Court, in various judgments, has held that courts should exercise caution while quashing criminal proceedings involving heinous offences, particularly those affecting society at large"
Highlighting that one of the accused in the matter was a "proclaimed offender", the court said that his repeated evasion of law strengthened the need for a thorough judicial process.
As per the FIR, the complainant was forcibly abducted at gunpoint by the accused in their vehicle and taken to a remote location wherein he was assaulted and robbed of his gold chain. FIR was lodged under Sections 365(Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person), 382(theft), 323(voluntarily causing hurt), and 34(common intention) of IPC.
The Court stated that the accused persons had acted with a criminal intent, and the mere fact of entering into a settlement with the complainant did not absolve them of their criminal liability, in light of such serious allegations which were non-compoundable and prima facie established during investigation.
The Court further opined that the offence of kidnapping or abduction under Section 365, IPC involved infringement on personal liberty and posed threat to safety, and such gravity of the offence that impacted victim's well-being and security made the offence non-compoundable.
Similarly, in relation to the offence of theft after making preparations to cause death, hurt of restrain under Section 382, it was held that the element of premeditated violence or coercion aggravated the offence beyond simple theft and made it non-compoundable.
Accordingly, it was held that allowing quashing of the FIR, for offences which are "serious in nature, cognizable, and non compoundable", based on compromise would set unhealthy precedent and defeat the purpose of criminal justice.
The court thus dismissed the plea.
Title: Bhajan Lal & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 110
