Allowed

Baldev v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2023CRLMP/3597/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court found a compromise between the parties and relied on the ratio of Gian Singh. Consequently, the FIR and related proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No.121/2023 and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 307, 452, 427, 323, 382, 342, 506, 143 IPC are quashed.

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

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:19340]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3597/2023

¶4

Baldev S/o Manful Ram, Aged About 50 Years,

¶5

Inderjit S/o Baldev, Aged About 26 Years,

¶6

Bhup Singh S/o Manful, Aged About 52 Years,

¶7

Manoj S/o Devilal, Aged About 35 Years,

¶8

Aslam S/o Harun, Aged About 33 Years, respondents No.1 to 5 are R/o Aradki Tesil Nohar Dist. Hanumangarh

¶9

Sahab Ram S/o Kurda Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Dumasar Tehsil Nohar Dist. Hanumangarh

¶10

Laxman S/o Kurda Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Dumasar Tehsil Nohar Dist. Hanumangarh

¶11

----Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

Vardan S/o Umed Singh, R/o Ralwas Khurad Tehsil And Dist. Hisar Haryana

¶15

Sunil S/o Ramfal, R/o Dhiralwas Tehsil And Dist. Hisar Haryana

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. GR Bhari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP Mr. BR Chahar

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶19

Order

¶20

03/07/2023

¶21

The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.c. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.121/2023 registered at Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh and all consequential proceedings for offence under Sections 307, 452, 427, 323, 382, 342, 506, 143 IPC.

[2023:RJ-JD:19340]

[CRLMP-3597/2023]

(2 of 2)

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has already been compromised between the parties and it is borne out from the compromise that respondent No.2-complainant is not inclined to proceed further in the matter. Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. In these circumstances, the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶26

Counsel for the respondents No.2-complainant concurs the fact of compromise and submits that in view of the compromise, the respondents No.2-complainant does not want to proceed further in the matter.

¶27

In view of compromise arrived at between the parties and applying the ratio in decision of Gian Singh (Supra) , I deem it just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶28

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.121/2023 registered at Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh and all consequential proceedings for offence under Sections 307, 452, 427, 323, 382, 342, 506, 143 IPC lodged against the petitioners are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise deed.

¶29

Stay application also decided.

¶30

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶31

2-MS/-

Baldev v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev 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

Tararam Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Kumar Kuril Vs Kailash Chandra Dube

Pramod Bhaskar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Lal Vs Punjab National Bank

Bmd Pvt. Lit. Vs State and Ors.

Meetha Lal @ Mithiya Vs State of Rajasthan