Allowed

Sunil S/O Babulal, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Aug 2023CRLMP/2765/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order consolidates two criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash criminal proceedings arising from specific FIRs. The court noted an amicable settlement and a shared prayer from parties. Relying on Gian Singh case principles, the High Court held that quashing was appropriate to maintain harmony as the dispute did not affect public peace, resulting in the quashing

What did the court decide?

FIRs (Nos. 244/2020 and 245/2020) and all further criminal proceedings in Case Nos. 07/2020 and 04/2022 are quashed and set aside; stay applications disposed.

Sunil S/O Babulal, Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2765/2023

¶4

Sunil S/o Babulal, R/o 102, Ambedkar Nagar, Raiger Mohalla, Boyatawala, P.s. Kradhani, Jaipur.

¶5

Dinesh S/o Chainsukh, R/o 102, Ambedkar Nagar, Raiger Mohalla, Boyatawala, P.s. Kradhani, Jaipur.

¶6

Om Prakash S/o Chainsukh, R/o 99, Raigar Mohalla, Boyatawala, P.s. Kardhani, Jaipur.

¶7

Savitri D/o Babulal, R/o 102, Ambedkar Nagar, Raiger Mohalla, Boyatawala, P.s. Kradhani, Jaipur.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶11

Seetaram S/o Sukhdev, R/o 96, Shiv Shakti Vihar, Boyatawala, Kardhani, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2766/2023

¶15

Sitaram S/o Sukhdev, Aged About 43 Years, R/o House No. 97, Ambedkar Nagar, Opp. Bhairu Ji Ka Mandir, P.s. Kardhani, Jaipur.

¶16

Vijay Kumar S/o Sitaram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o House No. 97, Ambedkar Nagar, Opp. Bhairu Ji Ka Mandir, P.s. Kardhani, Jaipur.

¶17

Vinod Kumar S/o Puranmal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o House No. 97, Ambedkar Nagar, Opp. Bhairu Ji Ka Mandir, P.s. Kardhani, Jaipur.

¶18

Puran Mal S/o Late Shri Pemaram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o House No. 97, Ambedkar Nagar, Opp. Bhairu Ji Ka Mandir, P.s. Kardhani, Jaipur.

¶19

Budhi Prakash S/o Nathulal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Niwai, District Tonk

¶20

----Petitioners

¶21

Versus

¶22

State Of Rajasthan, Though P.P.

¶23

Om Prakash S/o Chainsukh, R/o 99, Raigar Mohalla, Boyatawala, P.s. Kardhani, Jaipur (West)

¶24

----Respondents

¶25

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Guria For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP Mr. Javed Mohd. Khan

¶26

(2 of 3)

¶27

[CRLMP-2765/2023]

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

¶29

Order

¶30

01/08/2023

¶31

The instant criminal misc. Petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of criminal proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 07/2020 titled as State of Rajasthan v. Sunil & Ors. and 04/2022 titled as State of Rajasthan v. Sitaram & Ors. pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur arose out of FIR Nos. 244/2020 & 245/2020 respectively registered at Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur for the offence under Sections 323, 341 & 143 IPC.

¶32

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute in between the parties has been resolved through an amicable settlement and now there remains no controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceeding further.

¶33

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.

¶34

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the misc. petitions.

¶35

Heard, perused the material available on record more particularly the police report, nature of allegations 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

¶36

[CRLMP-2765/2023]

¶37

(3 of 3)

¶38

quashing of the same. The 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.

¶39

Here in this case, though 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 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.

¶40

Accordingly, the criminal misc. Petition is allowed and the FIRs mentioned above and all further proceedings including proceedings pending in the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur in Criminal case Nos.07/2020 & 04/2022, are hereby quashed and set aside. The stay applications also stand disposed of.

¶41

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶42

SAHIL SONI /420-421

Sunil S/O Babulal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil S/O Babulal, 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

Megh Singh S/O Dalpat Singh by Caste Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Batto Devi W/O Chagan Lal B/C Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Waseem S/O Shri Shakeel Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh Kumar Yadav Son of Shri Gopal Lal Yadav, Vs Ramlal Yadav Son of Shri Balu Ram Yadav

Sitaram S/O Sukhdev, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sahun S/O Sumardeen Vs State of Rajasthan