Allowed

Mukadar Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 May 2023CRLMP/808/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR and related proceedings. The High Court invoked inherent powers based on a settlement between parties, applying the ratio of Gian Singh.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.477/2022 and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 341, 307, 323, 143 of IPC lodged against petitioners quashed.

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

¶1

[2023/RJJD/012685]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 808/2023

¶4

Mukadar Ali S/o Barkat Khan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Sardargarh Teh. Suratgarh Dist. Sriganganagar.

¶5

Ajmal Khan S/o Barkat Ali, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Sardargarh Teh. Suratgarh Dist. Sriganganagar.

¶6

Kulvinder Kumar S/o Deshraj, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Manewala Teh. Suratgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar.

¶7

Toufik Khan S/o Zakir Khan, Aged About 18 Years, R/o W.no. 14, Suratgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶11

Sahil S/o Surender Kumar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Chack 23 Kyd The, Khajuwala Dist. Bikaner.

¶12

Nilesh S/o Tarachand, R/o Chack 25 Kyd, Teh. Khajuwala, Dist. Bikaner.

¶13

Karan Chawala S/o Satish Kumar, Aged About 22 Years, R/o W.no. 28 Teh. Suratgarh Dist. Sriganganagar.

¶14

Jitender Kachawa S/o Balram Kachawah, Aged About 22 Years, R/o W.no. 28 Old New W.no. 11 Suratgarh Dist. Sri Ganganagar.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP Mr. A.S. Rathore

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Order

¶18

01/05/2023

¶19

The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.c. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of F.I.R and criminal proceedings in connection with FIR No.477/2022 registered at Police Station Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 341, 307,

[2023/RJJD/012685]

[CRLMP-808/2023]

(2 of 2)

323, 143 of IPC on the basis of compromise entered between the parties.

¶24

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.2complainant 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.477/2022 registered at Police Station Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 341, 307, 323, 143 of IPC lodged against the petitioners are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise deed. Stay application also decided accordingly.

¶28

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶29

20-raksha/-

Mukadar Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukadar Ali 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

Kumbha Ram Godara Vs State of Rajasthan-State

Ramphal Vs State of Rajasthan

Akshay Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Fathe Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra @ Rajaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Harish Teli Vs State of Rajasthan