Allowed

Armaan Ahemd Son of Hafees Ahmed, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2023CRLMP/2681/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed FIR under IPC Sections 419, 420, and 120B and all subsequent proceedings in Criminal Case No. 194/2021 following an amicable settlement between the parties, relying on Gian Singh and the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The complainant's FIR No.21/2016 and all proceedings in Criminal Case No.194/2021 before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan-I are quashed and set aside.

Armaan Ahemd Son of Hafees Ahmed, Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2681/2023

¶3

Armaan Ahemd Son Of Hafees Ahmed, Resident Of 76-C, Dda Flat, Shastri Park, Seelampura, Delhi (Raj).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Shally Jindal Wife Of Rajeev Jindal, Resident Of F-3 Sapphire Jagan Apartment H-25, Tulsi Marg, Banipark, Jaipur (Raj).

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. MC Jain
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Suresh Kumar, PP
	Ms. Madhumita Das

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

¶10

Order

¶11

08/08/2023

¶12

The instant criminal misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.194/2021 titled as State Vs. Armaan Ahmed pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-I arose out of FIR No.21/2016 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime for the offence under Section 419, 420 & 120B of IPC.

¶13

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute between the parties has been resolved through an amicable settlement and now there remains no controversy between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceeding further. On the basis of compromise, the accused-

¶14

[CRLMP-2681/2023]

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

petitioner has been acquitted by the trial court for offence under Section 420 of IPC and trial under remaining Sections has been directed to continue.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for complainant-respondent admits the fact of compromise and submits that he is willing if the FIR and the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the misc. petition. Heard, perused the material available on record more particularly the police report, nature of allegation and the compromise deed executed in between the parties. The parties to the lis have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same. The offence alleged in this matter is noncompoundable, however Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] has propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it.

¶19

Here in this case, though the offences are not compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that is essentially in between the parties which is not affecting public peace and tranquility therefore with a view to maintain the

¶20

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2681/2023]

¶21

harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash the FIR and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.

¶22

Accordingly, the criminal misc. Petition is allowed and the FIR mentioned above, and all further proceedings including proceedings pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal case No.194/2021 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶23

The stay application also stands disposed of.

¶24

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶25

CHHAYA AWASTHI /602

Armaan Ahemd Son of Hafees Ahmed, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Armaan Ahemd Son of Hafees Ahmed, 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

Ishwar S/O Rangla Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishal Bairwa S/O Shri Ramesh Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Sachin Jain S/O Shri Subhash Chand Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Harikishan Son of Shri Chhiddaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajveer Son of Talewar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Poonam D/O Jagdish Prashad W/O Vijendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan