Allowed

Rishi Raj Meena @ Rishi @ Peshkar @ Manoj Son of Ramphal Meena, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Dec 2024/8292/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a petition under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings. Relying on apex court principles, the Court invoked inherent powers to discharge petitioners from all charges, including non-compoundable ones, due to an inter-party compromise and the personal nature of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners discharged from all charges under Sections 384, 389, 193, 195, 196, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC in Sessions Case No.12/2017. Stay application and pending applications disposed of.

Rishi Raj Meena @ Rishi @ Peshkar @ Manoj… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50564]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.8292/2024

¶4

Rishi Raj Meena @ Rishi @ Peshkar @ Manoj Son Of Ramphal Meena, Resident Of Meena Baroda, Police Station, Wazirpur, District Sawai Madhopur (Presently Resident Of House No. 14, Nanda Vihar Colony, In Front Of Sbbj Bank, Ghaslo Ki Dhani, Jagatpura, Police Station, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur City East.)

¶5

Arti @ Dipika Daughter Of Ratnesh Kumar, Resident Of Village Ruie, Police Station, Bhogaon, District Mainpuri (Uttar Pradesh), Presently Resident Of Plot No. 16 In Front Of Sbbj Bank, Jagdishpuri Colony, Main Jagatpura, Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur City (East), Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Rajasthan through PP

¶9

Sandeep Lamba Son Of Gopal Lamba, Resident Of Village Govindpura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Presently Tenant House No. 426-B, Shanti Nagar-B, Gurjar Ki Thadi, Police Station, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. Rahul Sharma Ms. Chanchal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP Mr. Prince Pal Singh

¶12

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

09/12/2024

¶15

The present misc. petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of the proceedings of Sessions Case No.12/2017 pending before the Court of Additional District Judge

[2024:RJ-JP:50564]

[CRLMP-8292/2024]

(2 of 3)

No.3-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District Jaipur on the basis of compromise entered between the parties.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that owing to dispute between the parties, an FIR was registered by the complainant against the petitioners, wherein after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 384, 389, 193, 195, 196, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC before the trial Court, but during pendency of the trial, good sense prevailed between the parties and the complainant submitted an application for compounding the offence. Counsel submits that the application submitted by the petitioners was partly allowed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 23.10.2024 and the offence under Section 420 IPC was compounded as the same was compoundable in nature and the prayer for compounding the offence under Sections 384, 389, 193, 195, 196, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC was declined as the offence in not compoundable. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan reported in 2019 (5) SCC 688 . Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the proceedings pending against the petitioners under Sections 384, 389, 193, 195, 196, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC be quashed.

¶21

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶22

Perusal of the record indicates that the trial Court has verified the compromise vide order dated 23.10.2024 to the

[2024:RJ-JP:50564]

[CRLMP-8292/2024]

(3 of 3)

extent of the offence under Section 420 IPC and discharged the petitioners from the charge under Section 420 IPC, however, the trial Court has declined to verify the compromise with regard to the offence under Sections 384, 389, 193, 195, 196, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC on the ground that the said offence is not compoundable.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties and looking to the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and now the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners and the alleged offence is an offence of personal nature and also applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Gian Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court contained under Section 528 BNSS. 6. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands allowed. The petitioners are discharged from the charge under Sections 384, 389, 193, 195, 196, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC in Sessions Case No.12/2017 pending before the Court of Additional District Judge No.3-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District Jaipur.

¶28

The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶29

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶30

Karan/71

Rishi Raj Meena @ Rishi @ Peshkar @ Manoj Son of Ramphal Meena, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishi Raj Meena @ Rishi @ Peshkar @ Manoj Son of Ramphal Meena, 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

Satish @ Satya Narayan Son of Shri Devpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramraj Son of Shri Gopal Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Siddharth Singh S/O Shri Digvijay Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilip Srivastava S/O Shri Radha Govind Srivastava Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramkesh Meena S/O Shri Battu Lal Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramkesh Meena S/O Shri Battu Lal Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan