Allowed

Mahaveer Prasad Bairwa v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC19 Jul 2018CRLMP/1643/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed an FIR involving cheating and forgery offences where the parties had reached a compromise. While the court noted the non-compoundable nature of some charges, reliance was placed on Supreme Court observations allowing quashing when disputes are essentially private and amicably resolved.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR No.289/12 and all subsequent criminal proceedings are quashed.

Mahaveer Prasad Bairwa Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1643/2018

¶3

Mahaveer Prasad Bairwa

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj And Anr

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP for State Mr. Santosh Singh Shekhawat, for respondent No.2

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Order

¶11

19/07/2018

¶12

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.289/12, registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (South) for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC alongwith all subsequent proceedings.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted during the course of proceedings, the parties have entered into compromise and the compromise was presented before the trial court for attestation. The trial court vide order dated 25.09.2017 accepted the compromise only qua offence under Section 420 IPC, but rejected the same qua offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC on the ground that the same are non-compoundable.

¶14

Complainant-respondent No.2 Smt. Rajrani Yadav is present in court. He has been identified by Mr. Santosh Singh Shekhawat.

¶15

Smt. Rajrani Yadav, complainant-respondent No.2, has submitted that the petitioner by misrepresentation in revenue

¶16

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-1643/2018]

¶17

records, got the wrong entries made qua her land. The complainant submits that now the revenue record has been corrected and she no longer intend to pursue the present FIR.

¶18

Learned counsel for the parties have jointly relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303] to contend that this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings, where the parties have amicably resolved the dispute in a matter which is essentially private in nature.

¶19

Since the parties, to promote everlasting peace and harmony in the society, have decided to bury the hatchet, this court is of the view that hour of the compromise is the finest hour between the respective parties.

¶20

Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the dispute has been resolved by the parties by way of compromise, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR alongwith all subsequent proceedings, is quashed.

¶21

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶22

Govind/

Mahaveer Prasad Bairwa v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaveer Prasad Bairwa 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

Nitendra Singhal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Kailash Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Vijay Laxmi Bairwa and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Shailendra Jarwal Vs Smt Neelam @ Nisha and Anr.

Kanaram and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Bhajan Das Swami Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp