Allowed

Saurabh Agarwal Son of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Feb 2024CRLMP/137/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash an FIR for theft and attempt to commit theft. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that personal disputes amicably settled justify quashing proceedings even for non-compoundable offences.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.387/2023 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur with all consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside.

Saurabh Agarwal Son of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:8295]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 137/2024

¶4

Saurabh Agarwal Son Of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of 62-A, Mahesh Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur 302015.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

Amar Singh Son Of Shri Kamardaram, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Flat No. 523, Omena Building, Mohana, Police Station Muhana, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Dr. R.K. Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP
	Mr. Akhilesh Pareek

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

16/02/2024

¶14

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed seeking to quash the FIR No.387/2023 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur (South) for offences under Sections 379 & 511 IPC.

¶15

The impugned FIR was registered by respondent No.2complainant, leveling allegation against the petitioner in respect of stealing clothes from his shop.

¶16

It has been submitted that the dispute, between parties which is personal in nature, has amicably been settled and the complainant has decided not to pursue criminal proceedings of the present FIR. The original compromise has been placed on record.

[2024:RJ-JP:8295]

[CRLMP-137/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for both parties with consent of their respective parties, who are present in person, verified the factum of compromise. The original compromise is taken on record.

¶21

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

¶22

“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.”

¶23

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

¶24

“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.”

¶25

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 and private in nature, and has been amicably settled between parties, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the present miscellaneous petition.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:8295]

[CRLMP-137/2024]

As a final result, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the FIR No.387/2023 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur (South) with all consequential proceedings, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶30

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

¶31

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶32

Sachin/91

Saurabh Agarwal Son of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Agarwal Son of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, 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

Rinku S/O Ashok Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Akanksha Yadav Daughter of Shri Ramlakhan Yadav, Wife of Shri Abhijeet Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Khushnuma Daughter of Mohammed Shamim, Wife of Sahid Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Nidhi Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Shahruddin S/O Mubin, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.