Allowed

Chandarani v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC19 Dec 2017CRLMP/6505/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special bail petition challenging the trial court's refusal to quash proceedings, the High Court held that upon an amicable compromise between parties, it exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal case and all subsequent proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of criminal case No.23/325/2013 along with all subsequent proceedings.

Chandarani Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6505 / 2017

¶3

Chandarani S/o Late Shri Chandrakant Jayaswal B/c Jayaswal, R/o 2/15, N.E.B. Housing Board Alwar.

¶4

Ve'rs u s

¶5

I. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶6

Basant Kumar Awasthi S/o Shri Govind Prasad B/c Brahmin, R/o Village Javali Tehseel Laxmangarh Alwar.

¶7

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Gaur For the State Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SIMGH AHLUWALIA / Order

¶9

19/12/2817' :

¶10

"To be mentioned."

¶11

On 15.12.2017 the order was dictated in the open Court, but before the same could 'be signied, certain clarifications were .. 1 i necessary, hence, it was ordered that the present matter be listed on 19.12.2017 under the heading of "To be mentioned."

¶12

Instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred on behalf of accused-petitioner under Secfion 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Alwar, whereby compromise application, as well as, prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings in a criminal case No.23/325/2013 were declined.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the brother.of the complainant being owner of the house had died and the deceased-tenant had fabricated an agreement to sell

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLMP-6505/2017]

¶16

alleging therein that the house 'hasr been transferred in his favour. Counsel has further submitted that the Police had submitted a Final Report in negative form. However, subsequently, better sense prevailed upon the parties and the compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the accused-petitioner, being wife of the deceased-tenant has left all claims over the house owned by the brother of the complainant and the non-petitioner/respondent No.2. Counsel has contended that the compromise arrived at between the parties was presented before the Id.. trial Court and the Id, trial Court vide impugned order dated 18.11.2017 has verified the factum of compromise and accepted the same, qua offence under Section 420 I.P.C. However, the same was rejected, qua offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-8 I.P.C. on the ground that the said offences are noncompoundable.

¶17

The order dated 18.11.2017 (Annexure-2) passed by the Id.

¶18

trial Court is reproduced he,rein be.low :-

¶19

Yesterday, Basant Kumar Awasthi, complainant/ nonpetitioner No.2 was present in person before this Court. He was identified by his Counsel - Mr. Vivek Gaur. He had submitted that the dispute, if any, has been amicably resolved between them, in view of

¶20

the compromise.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the parties have jointly relied upon the case of Gian Singh Vs. Sfafe of Punjab & Anofher f(2012) 10 S.C.C. 3031, to contend that this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the First Information Report, where the parties have amicably resolved their dispute.

¶22

Taking into account the judgment relied by the Id. counsel appearing for the parties, considering the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and on the joint prayer made by the Id. counsel a,ppearing for the parties, the present petition 'is accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of criminal case No.23/325/2013 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate,. Alwar, are, hereby, quashed, along with all subsequent proceedings. , I

¶23

(KANWALJIT SENGH AHLUWALIA)J.

¶24

ashok

Chandarani v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandarani v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Suresh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Lal Chand Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Kanhiya and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Vijendra Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rumal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp