Allowed

Paras Son of Shri Gurjarmal, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2024CRLMP/1350/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of FIR for kidnapping and theft after the complainant and the victim settled with the petitioner, whose relationship with the victim had produced a child. The court recorded their statements via Registrar (Judicial), applied Supreme Court precedent on quashing upon compromise, and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.149/2023, P.S. Phagi, District Jaipur Rural, quashed and set aside; pending applications disposed of.

Paras Son of Shri Gurjarmal, Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:12897]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1350/2024

¶4

Paras Son Of Shri Gurjarmal, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Pakka Dhora, Toda Thekla, Berwas, Police Station Mandawari, District Dausa, Present Resident Of Bagrana Kachhi Basti, Police Station Kanota, District- Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

Station House Officer, Police Station Phagi Jaipur Rural 3. Superintendent Of Police, District- Jaipur Rural, Jaipur. 4. Bhanwar Lal Son Of Shri Chhitar Bagriya, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Dev Nagar, Ladana, Dist.- Jaipur Rural (Raj.)

¶9

Victim, R/o

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr.	K.K. Bhinda, Atar Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Chandragupt Chopra, PP
	Mr.	Pradeep Sharma

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶13

Order

¶14

14/03/2024

¶15

Instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed, seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.149/2023 registered at Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur Rural for offences u/s 363 and 380 of IPC.

¶16

It has been contended that daughter of non-petitioner No.4complainant- Bhanwar Lal has attained the age of majority and earlier during her minority, her engagement was fixed with petitioner on 05.05.2021 wherein complainant was also consenting party. Later on, petitioner and complainant’s daughter, started to meet each other continuously and fell in physical relationship and out of that lawful relationship a child born.

[2024:RJ-JP:12897]

[CRLMP-1350/2024]

(2 of 4)

It has been contended that complainant was not aware about such facts and under apprehension that her daughter has been kidnapped by the petitioner, he lodged the impugned FIR, but now the complainant has realized that FIR was registered narrating incorrect facts. It has been submitted that both parties have cleared their misunderstanding and father of petitioner as well as father of victim, both have accepted the relationship of petitioner and victim, as much as for better future of both, have entered into compromise and compromise dated 20.02.2024 has been placed on record.

¶21

Complainant-non-petitioner No.4- Bhanwar Lal as well as his daughter-non-petitioner No.5, who is victim, are present in person before this Court and are ready to depose their statements before the Registrar (Judicial) having no objection to quash the impugned FIR and do not want to prosecute the petitioner in the present FIR accepting that petitioner and non-petitioner No.5 are major and out of their nuptial ties / physical relationship in furtherance to their engagement, a child has born out. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to record statements of complainant and her daughter and send the report before this Court.

¶22

The Registrar (Judicial) has recorded statements of complainant and her daughter. As per statements of complainant and her daughter, that victim is a major lady and both are not interested in continuing further proceedings in the impugned FIR, which is at the initial stage of investigation.

¶23

Learned counsel for both parties has jointly prayed that in order to save the future of petitioner, complainant’s daughter and

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:12897]

[CRLMP-1350/2024]

their minor baby, FIR in question may be quashed for which all parties concerned are agreeable and same would serve the ends of justice.

¶28

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State

¶29

of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303] observed as follows:

¶30

“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.”

¶31

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of Ramgopal

¶32

Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [2022 (14) SCC 531

¶33

observed as follows:

¶34

“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.”

¶35

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shiji @ Pappu &

¶36

Ors. Vs. Radhika & Anr. [(2011) 10 SCC 705] , allowed to quash criminal proceedings of case for offences under Sections

¶37

354 & 394 IPC by High Court in exercise of its inherent

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:12897]

[CRLMP-1350/2024]

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., after parties settled the

¶42

dispute mutually and made following observation in Para No.19:-

¶43

“19. Coming to the case at hand, we are of the view that the incident in question had its genesis in a dispute relating to the access to the two plots which are adjacent to each other. It was not a case of broad daylight robbery for gain. It was a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute has, it appears, been resolved by them. That being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now described by her as arising out of some “misunderstanding and misconception” will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eyewitnesses, who are closely related to the complainant, are also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 CrPC could, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the courts below.”

¶44

In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases and taking into consideration facts narrated hereinabove and keeping in mind to save the happy and harmonious life of petitioner and complainant’s daughter with their minor child, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present misc. petition.

¶45

As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.149/2023 registered at Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur Rural, are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶46

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

¶47

(SUDESH BANSAL), J

¶48

NITIN /259

Paras Son of Shri Gurjarmal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paras Son of Shri Gurjarmal, 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

Rajendra Kumar Chouhan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Kumar Jain Son of Late Shri Tej Bahadur Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Priyanka D/O Late Shri Santram W/O Jitendra Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Reena Jain D/O Shri Babulal Jain W/O Shri Hukam Chand Jain, Vs State of Rajasthan

Pramod Meena S/O Rameshchand Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Islam S/O Narsi, Vs State of Rajasthan