Allowed

Dharmveer Son of Harkhyal, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Apr 2023CRLMP/423/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash an FIR and criminal proceedings arising from a domestic dispute involving Sections 498A and 406 IPC. Relying on judicial precedents, the court held that since the dispute was resolved amicably and did not affect public peace, the inherent power was exercised to quash the proceedings and direct a closure report.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.459/2014 and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside. The SHO is directed to file a closure report within one month.

Dharmveer Son of Harkhyal, Vs State of Rajasthan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 423/2023

¶3

Dharmveer Son Of Harkhyal, Resident Of Girsai, Police Station Deeg, District Bharatpur, Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Learned Public Prosecutor.

¶7

1. Bhagwati D/o Ghanshyam, Resident Of Devi Darwaja, Kaman, District Bharatpur (Raj).

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ankit Khandelwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Imran Khan, PP
	Mr. Arvind Sharma for the
	complainant

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

¶11

Order

¶12

05/04/2023

¶13

The instant criminal misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No.423/2014 titled as State vs. Dharmveer, arising out of FIR No.459/2014 registered at Police Station Kaman, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan for the offence under Sections 498A & 406 of IPC.

¶14

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner 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 proceedings further. On the basis of compromise, the accusedpetitioner has been acquitted by the trial court for offence under

¶15

[CRLMP-423/2023]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

Section 406 IPC and trial under Section 498A IPC has been directed to continue.

¶18

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.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.

¶20

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 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.

¶21

Here in this case, though the said offence is noncompoundable 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 harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties,

¶22

[CRLMP-423/2023]

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

it is deemed appropriate to quash the FIR and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.

¶25

Accordingly, the criminal misc. Petition is allowed and the said FIR mentioned above, and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside. The SHO concerned is directed to file a closure report with the concerned Judicial Magistrate within a period of one month from the date of receiving copy of this order.

¶26

The stay application also stands disposed of.

¶27

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶28

Chhaya Awasthi/47

Dharmveer Son of Harkhyal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmveer Son of Harkhyal, 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

Nitu Choudhary W/O Sh. Nishant Choudhary D/O Ishwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Neetu Badsara Wife of Shri Maneesh D/O Mr. Shyopal Badsara, Vs State of Rajasthan

Nirmum Rebari D/O Kalu Ram Rebari, W/O Bhag Chand, Vs State of Rajasthan

Radhe Shyam Jangid S/O Shri Harnath Jangid, Vs State of Rajasthan

Savita Devi W/O Rajesh Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Govind Shankar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through P P