The High Court of Rajasthan granted a compromise between petitioners and accused respondents, leading to the quashing of FIR No. 244/2002 involving cheating and forgery under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 120B IPC.
Quashed FIR No. 244/2002 along with all subsequent proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2189/2018
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP Mr. Rishi Parashar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
-/Order/-
09/08/2018
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 244/2002 registered at Police Station Mansarover, Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B IPC.
In the present petition, quashing of the FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise.
The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that a compromise was presented before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, No.20, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The said court
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-2189/2018]
accepted the compromise only qua offence under Section 420 IPC but rejected the same qua offences under Sections 467, 468 and 120B IPC on the ground that the said offences are noncompoundable.
Today, respondent nos. 2 and 3 are present in the court. They have been identified by their counsel Mr. Rishi Parashar.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners herein had promised to sell a plot and had received Rs.1, 72,000/- from the petitioners in the year 2001. It is stated that now the accused have agreed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainants. It is submitted that Rs.1,25,000/- has already been received by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and today a bankers cheque amounting to Rs.1,25,000/- has been handed over to Bhupesh Jain respondent no.2. Photocopy of the bankers cheque is taken on record.
The complainant – respondents no. 2 and 3 have submitted that they will have no claim over the plot after having received Rs.2,50,000/-. They have further prayed to this Court that the impugned FIR be quashed as they no longer intend to pursue the present FIR.
The learned counsel for the parties have jointly relied upon Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , to contend that that this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings to advance the interest of justice.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the compromise is finest hour between
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-2189/2018]
the parties and this Court ought to grant due sanctity to the amicable resolution of dispute between the parties.
Consequently, taking totality of circumstances, and ratio of law laid in the case of Gian Singh (supra), the present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
Mak/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon a compromise regarding non-compoundable offences.
Whether the amicable resolution of a dispute between parties warrants quashing of criminal proceedings to advance the interest of justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & AnotherRelied on¶24
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shyam Maheswary
Vivek Gupta
State Of Rajasthan
Bhupesh Jain
Prashant Singhvi
Kanwalit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
