Allowed

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

Rajasthan HC7 Jul 2022CRLMP/801/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for cheating under IPC 420/120B, 419/120B and I.T. Act 68, holding that since a mutual compromise was settled between the parties, continuing the trial served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Criminal Case No.1072/2014 arising out of F.I.R. No.11/2013 for offences punishable under Sections 420/120-B, 419/120-B of I.P.C. and Section 68 of I.T. Act are quashed.

Vipin Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 801/2018

¶3

Vipin Kumar S/o Shri Chandrapal Singh, R/o Kina, Police Station Shivala Kala, District Bijnaur U.P. Presently residing at Gram Chauda, Sector 22, Police Station Noida, Sector 24, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

¶4

Shekhar Dubey S/o Shri Om Prakash Dubey, R/o House No. 179, Azad Nagar, Bye-Pass Road, Police Station Ikdil Itawa, District Itawa U.p..

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶8

Paramatam Swaroop Bhatnagar S/o Shri Bishan Swaroop Bhatnagar R/o B-191-A, University Road, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Kuldeeep Bhatia, Advocate for Mr. K.N. Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahendra Meena, Public Prosecutor Mr. Namesingh Gurjar, Advocate for the Complainant

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA Order

¶12

07/07/2022 :

¶13

Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of accused-petitioners with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings pending against them before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in Criminal Case No.1072/2014 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Vipin Kumar & Another) arising out of F.I.R. No.11/2013 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur City (East), whereby the trial Court, vide its order dated 15.10.2014, attested the compromise for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 419 of I.P.C., but refused to attest the compromise

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CRLMP-801/2018]

¶16

against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420/120B and 419/120-B of I.P.C. and under Section 68 of I.T. Act, as the same are non-compoundable.

¶17

Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the complainantrespondent No.2 had lodged an F.I.R. bearing No.11/2013 at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur City (East) for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. Thereafter, Police had registered a case against the petitioners for the aforesaid offence and started investigation. After a thorough investigation, Police had filed chargesheet against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. and under Section 68 of I.T. Act before the concerned Court. The trial Court had framed charges for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and commenced trial. During the pendency of trial, an application was preferred on behalf of petitioners and complainant/respondent No.2 stating therein that both the parties have entered into a compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioners may be dropped.

¶18

The trial Court, vide its order dated 15.10.2014, allowed the parties to compound the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 419 of I.P.C., however, rejected the application so far as it relates to non-compoundable offences punishable under Sections 420/120-B and 419/120-B of I.P.C. and under Section 68 of I.T. Act. Hence, the present petition on behalf of petitioners for quashing the aforesaid criminal proceedings.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners that as the complainant/respondent No.2 and the petitioners have already entered into a compromise and on the basis of it, the proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 419 of I.P.C. have already been dropped against the petitioners, so

¶20

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-801/2018]

¶21

there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for remaining offences. It is also argued by the learned counsel that since a compromise has been arrived at between the parties by way of mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the trial against the petitioners for the remaining offences as the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners, whereas the learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent No.2 has no objection, if the proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 420/120-B and 419/120-B of I.P.C. and under Section 68 of I.T. Act are dropped against the petitioners, as the parties have already entered into a compromise.

¶23

Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and there is no possibility of the petitioners being convicted in the case pending against them. Once the dispute has already been settled by way of mutual compromise, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending.

¶24

Furthermore, keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012 (9) SC 426, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners can be quashed, while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶25

Accordingly, instant petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Criminal Case No.1072/2014 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Vipin

¶26

(4 of 4)

¶27

[CRLMP-801/2018]

¶28

Kumar & Another) arising out of F.I.R. No.11/2013 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur City (East) for offences punishable under Sections 420/120-B and 419/120-B of I.P.C. and under Section 68 of I.T. Act, are hereby quashed.

¶29

Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶30

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

¶31

ASHOK/56

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar 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

Ramkumar Mankas S/O Sohanram Mankas Vs State of Rajasthan

Abhishek Jain S/O Satish Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Sukhsagar Kahar S/O Shri Ramlal Kahar Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Jyoti Wife of Shri Praveen, D/O Shri Bhagirath Soni, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishnu Singhal S/O Late Sh. Prem Chan Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Kumar Son of Shri Jagdish Prasad, Vs State of Rajasthan