Petition to quash FIR No. 38/2024 (robbery with violence, Sections 397 and 506 IPC) based on a compromise between parties was relied upon Gian Singh and Ramgopal rulings; court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JP:28029]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1462/2024
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
05/07/2024
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-1462/2024]
[2024:RJ-JP:28029]
“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.”
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja /392
1 issue framed by the court
Should FIR No. 38/2024 and consequential proceedings be quashed under Section 482 CrPC given an amicable compromise between the parties?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶4
[(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶4
[2022 (14) SCC 531] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh
Sonu
Pradeep
Arvind Kumar
State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
Deepak Gujar
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
