Allowed

Durga Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2023CRLMP/4772/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, relying on the principle of compromise in Gian Singh, quashed an FIR and all consequential proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to a settlement between the parties in a case involving offences under IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, 458, 323 & 354.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.80/2017 and all consequential proceedings for offences under IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, 458, 323 & 354 lodged against the petitioners are quashed.

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4772/2023

¶3

Durga Ram S/o Hema Ram, Aged About 35 Years,

¶4

Madan Lal S/o Hema Ram, Aged About 37 Years,

¶5

Pappu Ram S/o Nanu Ram, Aged About 30 Years,

¶6

Ramniwas S/o Nanu Ram, Aged About 27 Years,

¶7

Teja Ram S/o Sayoji Ram, Aged About 30 Years,

¶8

Harendra S/o Shiv Ram, Aged About 27 Years,

¶9

Santosh Devi W/o Durga Ram, Aged About 32 Years,

¶10

All are R/o Village Padampura, Tehsil Kuchaman City, District Nagaur (Raj.)

¶11

----Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

Chhitar Ram S/o Ratana Ram, Aged About 27 Years,

¶15

Ramdev S/o Ratna Ram, Aged About 20 Years,

¶16

Sohan Ram S/o Ratna Ram, Aged About 23 Years,

¶17

Bhiva Ram S/o Ladu Ram, Aged About 41 Years, 6. Manisha W/o Chhitar Ram, Aged About 22 Years,

¶18

Panni Devi W/o Ratna Ram, Aged About 58 Years,

¶19

Respondents No.2 to 7 are R/o Village Padampura, Tehsil Kuchaman City, District Nagaur (Raj.)

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deependra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. R. Choudhary, PP Mr. Amit Kumar, for respondents

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order

¶23

14/08/2023

¶24

The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.80/2017

¶25

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-4772/2023]

¶26

registered at Police Station Kuchaman City, District Nagaur for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 458, 323 & 354 of IPC.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has already been compromised between the parties which is borne out from the compromise deed that the respondent No.2 complainant is not inclined to proceed further in the matter. Learned 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 FIR may be quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶28

Learned counsel for the complainant concurs the fact of compromise and submits that in view of the compromise, he does not want to proceed further in the matter.

¶29

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.

¶30

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and FIR No.80/2017 registered at Police Station Kuchaman City, District Nagaur and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 458, 323 & 354 lodged against the petitioners are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise deed. 6. Stay petition also decided accordingly.

¶31

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶32

496-nidhi/-

Durga Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga 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

Ravindra Kumar Parihar Vs State of Rajasthan

Moola Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Harvinder Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Muskan Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanta Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramchandra Binda Vs State of Rajasthan