Allowed

Kabu Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2022CRLMP/224/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur allowed criminal miscellaneous petitions to quash FIR No.387/2018. The court held that since the parties reached a compromise and resolved the dispute amicably, the FIR was liable to be quashed to establish harmony, relying on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.387/2018 registered at Police Station Basani, District Jodhpur is quashed and set aside.

Kabu Devi Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S. B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 5841/2022

¶3

Dinesh Kumar S/o Sankerlal, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Prajapat, R/o Village Majiwada, Police Station Balotra, District Barmer. At Present R/o Plot No. 3 And 4, RIICO, Sangariya Fanta, Police Station Basni, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Pp

¶7

Meenakshi Agarwal W/o Mukesh Agarwal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 2/29, Kuri Bhagtasani, Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 224/2019

¶11

Kabu Devi W/o Shankar Lal, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Prajapat,

¶12

Anita W/o Dinesh Kumar, Aged About 23 Years, B/c Prajapat,

¶13

Shankar Lal S/o Govind Ram, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Prajapat,

¶14

Ramchandra S/o Govind Ram, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Prajapat,

¶15

Hula Devi W/o Ramchandra, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Prajapat,

¶16

Chanda Ram S/o Govind Ram, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Prajapat,

¶17

Babu Lal s/o Govind Ram, Aged About 37 Years, B/c Prajapat,

¶18

Rama Ram S/o Govind Ram, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Prajapat,

¶19

Premsahu S/o Deva Ram, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Choudhary, All are R/o Village Majiwada, P.S. Balotra, Distt. Barmer. At Present R/o Plot No 3 and 4, RIICO, Sangariya Fanta, P.S. Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioners

Versus

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-5841/2022]

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶25

Meenakshi Agarwal W/o Mukesh Agarwal, R/o 2/29, Kuri Bhagtasani, Jodhpur

¶26

----Respondents

¶27

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Tak in CRLMP No. 5841/22 None present for petitioners in CRLMP No. 224/2019

¶28

For Respondent(s)

¶29

: Mr. Gaurav Singh, P.P. Mr. Himanshu Choudhary for the respondent No. 2

¶30

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order

¶31

20/09/2022

¶32

By way of these criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.387/2018 registered at Police Station Basani, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 454, 380, 323, 382 & 509 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶33

Mr. Tak, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the investigation, the petitioners have entered into a compromise with the complainant, which has been reduced in writing and produced before the Investigating Officer.

¶34

Mr. Singh, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report dated 12.09.2022, which is taken on record.

¶35

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the basis of factual report, submits that the parties have entered into compromise and the Investigating Officer has verified the same.

¶36

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5841/2022]

¶37

Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the complainant while accepting the factum of compromise, submits that the complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.

¶38

In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made available for my perusal; considering that the petitioners and complainant have entered into compromise and resolved the dispute amicably, this Court feels that in order to establish harmony between the petitioners and the complainant and give quietus to the litigation, it would be expedient that impugned FIR is quashed.

¶39

The present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr-reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ] , the FIR is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties although the offences are not compoundable.

¶40

In view of the above, these criminal misc. petitions are allowed and the FIR No.387/2018 registered at Police Station Basani, District Jodhpur is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.

¶41

The stay applications also stand disposed of.

¶42

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶43

77-78-Inder/-

Kabu Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kabu Devi v. State of Rajasthan

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

Janki Lal Vs State

Paras Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

N.K. Soni and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Irfan Pinara Vs State and Anr.

Smt Harichchha Dave Vs State

Sher Singh Vs State of Rajasthan