Quashed

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Feb 2024CRLMP/182/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR and proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC upon finding that the parties had settled the dispute amicably. Relying on Gian Singh, the Court held that quashing was appropriate as the offences were personal in nature and did not affect public peace.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.160/2022 and all further proceedings are quashed and set aside.

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:8793]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 182/2023

¶4

Ranjeet Singh S/o Late Shri Thakar Singh, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Vill./chak Gulabewala Tehsil Sri Karanpur Dist. Sri Ganganagar Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Karnail Singh S/o Late Shri Thakar Singh, R/o Vill./chak Gulabewala Tehsil Sri Karanpur Dist. Sri Ganganagar Raj.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.R. Budania For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Mehar, PP Mr. Karnel Singh

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶12

Order

¶13

20/02/2024

¶14

The instant criminal misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.160/2022 registered at Police Station Gharsana, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute in between the parties has been resolved through an amicable settlement and now, there remains no controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings further. The same has been verified by the Investigating Officer.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for complainant-respondent admits the fact of compromise and submits that he is willing if the FIR and the proceedings are

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:8793]

[CRLMP-182/2023]

quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.

¶22

Heard, perused the material available on record more particularly the police report, nature of allegation and the compromise deed executed in between the parties. The parties to the lis have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same. Some of the offences alleged in this matter are non-compoundable, however, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] has propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it. It is observed that in such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame prosecution would be a waste of time and energy that will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. This court is aptly guided by the principles propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and feels that where the dispute is essentially inter se between the parties, either they are relatives, neighbours or having business relationship and which does not affect the society at large, then in such cases, with a view to maintain harmonious relationships between the two sides, to end-up the dispute in between them permanently as well

[2024:RJ-JD:8793]

[CRLMP-182/2023]

(3 of 3)

as for restitution of relationship, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings initiated thereto.

¶27

Here in this case, though the offences are not compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that is essentially in between the parties which is not affecting public peace and tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain the harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash the FIR and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.

¶28

Accordingly, the criminal misc. Petition is allowed and the FIR mentioned above, and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside. The SHO concerned is directed to file a closure report with the concerned Judicial Magistrate within a period of one month from the date of receiving copy of this order.

¶29

The stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶30

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶31

388-Samvedana/-

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Singh 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

Parkaram @ Parkharam Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Subh Enterprises Vs Sankhala Paints and Building Materials

Suman Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagat Pal Vs State of Rajasthan

Paresh Jain Vs State of Rajasthan