Allowed

Raj Kumar Sharma and Anr. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC10 Aug 2018CRLMP/1413/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court quashed FIR No.319/2005 for offences including cheating and forgery. The court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applying Gian Singh precedent, to allow the petition due to an amicable compromise between the parties resolving a private dispute.

What did the court decide?

The impugned First Information Report No.319/2005 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

Raj Kumar Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Raj… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1413/2018

¶3

Raj Kumar Sharma Alias Raju, Son Of Shri Dhanna Lal Sharma, By Caste Brahman , Resident Of Gram Sikray, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa Rajasthan

¶4

Ravindra Soni, Son Of Shri Shiv Bhagwaan Soni, By Caste Soni , Resident Of 70/210-A, Bhairav Path, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, District Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶8

Mahesh Krishan Sharma, Son Of Shri Durga Prasad Sharma , Resident Of Bassi, District Jaipur At Present Residing 2624, Telipada, Chokari Vishveshwar Ji, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sudesh Bansal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sachin Mittal
For the State	: Mrs. Meenakshi Pareek, P.P.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶12

/ Order

¶13

10/08/2018

¶14

Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of impugned F.I.R. No.319/2005 registered at Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 454, 380, 465, 467, 471, 201 and 120-B I.P.C. on the basis of compromise.

¶15

Complainant/respondent No.2 – Mahesh Krishan Sharma is present in person before this Court. He has been identified by his Counsel Mr. Sachin Mittal.

¶16

Complainant/respondent No.2 – Mahesh Krishan Sharma, present in person, has stated that Raj Kumar @ Raju, Ravindra Soni and

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMP-1413/2018]

¶19

Rajendra Kumar Mathur by preparing forged and false rent receipts unlawfully entered in the property of the petitioners and projected themselves as tenants. Complainant/respondent No.2 – Mahesh Krishan Sharma, present in person, has further stated that now the above said persons have returned the possession of the demised premises to him and he no longer intends to pursue the impugned F.I.R.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench on 30.01.2015 had accepted the compromise, qua Rajendra Kumar Mathur and had dropped proceedings against him vide order dated 30.01.2015 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.440/2015, titled as Rajendra Kumar Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & another.

¶21

Counsel appearing for the parties have also vouchsafed the factum of compromise.

¶22

Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have submitted that since the parties have decided to promote everlasting peace, amity and harmony and, therefore, dispute which is essentially private in nature stands resolved.

¶23

Counsel appearing for the respective parties have jointly prayed that since the dispute has been amicably resolved, the criminal case pending between the parties as well as impugned F.I.R. be quashed.

¶24

It has been often held by the Courts that hour of the compromise is the finest hour between the parties and the Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings even qua non-compoundable offences.

¶25

Relying upon the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another [(2012) 10 S.C.C. 303], learned counsel for the parties have pleaded that this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CRLMP-1413/2018]

¶28

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to quash the criminal proceedings, which have been amicably resolved.

¶29

Considering the fact that parties have amicably resolved their dispute, the principle established by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh [ supra ] and in the interest of justice, this Court, hereby, quashes impugned First Information Report No.319/2005 registered at Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 454, 380, 465, 467, 471, 201 and 120-B I.P.C., along with all subsequent proceedings.

¶30

Resultantly, the petition is, hereby, allowed .

¶31

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶32

ashok

Raj Kumar Sharma and Anr. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Sharma and Anr. 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

Mukesh Kumar Saini Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Shyam Maheswari and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Brajraj Singh and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Ram Kishan Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Man Mohan Nagar Vs State

Jog Singh Vs State of Raj and Anr.