Allowed

Jepa Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2023CRLMP/14/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., relying on a verified compromise between the parties and guiding Supreme Court precedents on compounding specific offences.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No.232/2022 and all consequent proceedings pending before the Special Judge SC/ST Courts are quashed and all pending applications are disposed of.

Jepa Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

(1 of 5) [CRLMP-14/2023]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 14/2023

¶4

Jepa Ram S/o Sh. Varda Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Jodhpur Road, Ahore Teh. Ahore Teh. Ahore, Dist. Jalore.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Indra Devi W/o Mangi Lal, Indra Colony, Sheoganj, Dist. Sirohi.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	RS Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	SK Bhati, PP
	Mr.	Aidan Choudhary

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

03/01/2023

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant jointly submit that the petitioner and the complainant have entered into compromise in the ongoing criminal proceedings. It is thus submitted that the parties are not inclined to proceed further in the matter.

¶14

This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2021 decided on 30.07.2021, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

¶15

“3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter alia, that the Appellant had committed an offence Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed that both the Accused (Appellant) and Respondent No. 2 were living together for a

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

[CRLMP-14/2023]

¶18

considerable while. The complainant's allegation is that the Appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that he is divorced. The complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.

¶19

4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a child was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year 2018). As a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them.

¶20

5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant - who does not dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution further, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings must be quashed.

¶21

6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside; the FIR (No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not come in the way or in any manner prejudice the contentions of the parties in any other pending proceedings, which shall 20-09-2022 be decided in accordance with law.

¶22

7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the following order for consideration passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.4119/2021 decided on 06.04.2022 (Dhabba Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) , which reads as follows:-

¶24

“1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accusedpetitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to

¶25

(3 of 5)

¶26

[CRLMP-14/2023]

¶27

quash the FIR No.94/2021 registered at Police Station Gida, District Barmer for the offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the I.T. Act.

¶28

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of investigation, the petitioner and the complainant have entered into a compromise and thus, no dispute remains pending between them and the complainant does not wish to continue with the present litigation.

¶29

3. Learned counsel further submits that the compromise in question has been produced before the Investigating Officer, who has verified the factum of compromise and the same has been executed without any force or coercion.

¶30

4. Learned counsel submits that the complaint in question came be to be lodged by the complainant on account of an audio of the conversation between the petitioner and complainant getting viral and now the parties have decided to resolve the dispute having regard to the fact that the petitioner and complainant are close relatives.

¶31

5. Learned counsel for the complainant also accepts the fact of the compromise and submits that even the husband of the prosecutrix/complainant has signed the compromise.

¶32

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering that the complainant is aunt (Mami) of the present petitioner and also considering that the FIR in question was lodged under social pressure and also finding that the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by the Larger Bench of 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 aforesaid FIR is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶33

7. In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.94/2021 registered at Police

¶34

(4 of 5)

¶35

[CRLMP-14/2023]

¶36

Station Gida, District Barmer is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.

¶37

The stay application also stands disposed of.”

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, which factum is reflected from the affidavit sworn before the trial court as well as the representation dated 23.08.2022 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Jalore. The said report is taken on record.

¶39

Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303] .

¶40

In view of compromise arrived at between the parties as also the verification of factum of such compromise by the learned Public Prosecutor, as discernible from the aforesaid factual report, as also the careful perusal of the statement of prosecutrix and applying the ratio of the decision in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra); Dhabba Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan

¶41

& Anr. (supra) & Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi

¶42

(supra) , this Court deems it just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶43

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.232/2022 registered at Police Station Ahore, District Jalore, for the offence under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(D) IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act alongwith entire proceedings pursuant thereto pending before the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases,

¶44

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-14/2023]

¶45

Jalore in Criminal Case No.68/2022 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Phuli

¶46

Kanwar @ Anita & Ors.), qua the petitioner, are hereby quashed.

¶47

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶48

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶49

176-Sanjay/-

Jepa Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jepa Ram 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

Alok Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Sharma Vs State

Smt. Hina Vs State of Rajasthan

Vimala Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishna Vs State of Rajasthan

Punam Thory Vs State of Rajasthan