Allowed

Anmol S/O Shri Kailash, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Feb 2024CRLMP/128/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that courts can quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon settlement, even for non-compoundable offences, if the dispute is private and just and proper to do so.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.485/2023 registered at Police Station Chitrakoot, Jaipur (West) with all consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside.

Anmol S/O Shri Kailash, Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:5525]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 128/2024

¶4

Anmol S/o Shri Kailash, R/o Village And Post Landri, Tehsil And District Hissar ( Haryana).

¶5

Bhavnesh S/o Rajesh, R/o Village And Post Keermara, Tehsil And District Hissar (Haryana).

¶6

Udit S/o Shri Ravindra, R/o Village Basai, Dhankot, Gurugawa, Tehsil And District Gurgaon ( Haryana).

¶7

Udai Tanwar S/o Yashdeep, R/o Village Bandukhedi, Nakud Road, Police Station Nakud, District Saharanpur, ( Utter Pradesh).

¶8

Ritik S/o Shri Om Prakash, R/o Dalpatpura, Patan, District Neem Ka Thana (Rajasthan).

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶12

Amit Kumar S/o Ramniwas, R/o 174, Bhagwati Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara. Permanent Resident Of Ward No. 14, Rodasar, Post Tatija, Khetri, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

¶13

Ajay Kumar Lohiya S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Gurjar, R/o Plot No. 174, Bhagwati Nagar, Near Army Area, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. L. Kumawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, PP Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶17

Order

¶18

01/02/2024

¶19

Instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner for quashing of FIR No.485/2023 registered at Police Station Chitrakoot, Jaipur (West) for offences under

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-128/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:5525]

Sections 143, 323, 341, 427, 365 IPC and on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties.

¶24

It has been submitted that the quarrel between parties erupted on the way, when accused petitioners came to Jaipur for celebration of New year on 18.12.2023 and in view of allegations of beating and threatening, the dispute is private and personal between parties. The accused persons have no any other criminal case. Both parties have amicably settled their dispute and decided not to pursue the criminal proceedings of the present FIR. The compromise executed between both parties has been placed on record, which has been verified and identified by Investigating Officer. A copy of compromise executed between parties is placed on record.

¶25

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303] observed as follows:

¶26

“Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.”

¶27

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2022 (14) SCC 531 observed as follows:

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:5525]

[CRLMP-128/2024]

“12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are noncompoundable.”

¶32

In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, and considering the nature of dispute, which is personal in nature, has been amicably settled between parties, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the present misc. petition.

¶33

As a final result, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the FIR No.485/2023 registered at Police Station Chitrakoot, Jaipur (West) with all consequential proceedings, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶34

All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶35

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶36

TN/198

Anmol S/O Shri Kailash, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anmol S/O Shri Kailash, 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

Shivdutt Sharma Son of Shri Dev Karan Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep @ Solet S/O Kaluram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rehnuma Kureshi Wife of Shri Tosheef D/O Shokat Kureshi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Divya Saini D/O Shankar Lal Saini, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kavita Yadav Wife of Shri Rajendra Yadav Daughter of Shri Kajod Mal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Abhishek Lodha S/O Shri Sushil Lodha Vs State of Rajasthan