Allowed

Bhanwar Lal S/O Sujaram Jat, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Feb 2024CRLMP/199/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR for offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy. After verifying the mutual settlement and affidavit by counsel, the High Court held it just and proper to allow the petitions and quash the FIR due to the amicable settlement between parties.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 259/2021 registered at P.S. Phagi, Jaipur (Rural) with all consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside.

Bhanwar Lal S/O Sujaram Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6972]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 199/2024

¶4

Bhanwar Lal S/o Sujaram Jat, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 150, Tiba Ki Dhani, Thala, Jhadla, Tehsil Madhorajpura, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

Dinesh S/o Ramavtar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Pundarpada, Manpur, Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3934/2023

¶12

Hari Narayan Choudhary S/o Shri Failiram Choudhary, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Baget, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶16

Dinesh Kumar S/o Ramavtar, R/o Punderwada, Police Station Manpur, Tehsil, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxmi Nivas Koli For Respondent(s) : Mr Mangal Singh Saini, PP Mr. Manish Lavaniya

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶20

Order

¶21

09/02/2024

¶22

Accused-petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the FIR No.259/2021 registered at PS Phagi, Jaipur (Rural) for offences under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC, on the basis of compromise arrived at between both parties.

[2024:RJ-JP:6972]

[CRLMP-199/2024]

(2 of 3)

Allegation against petitioners, is to take some amount from the complainant under the pretext to provide job, however, later on, the money was not returned.

¶27

It has been submitted that both parties have mutually settled their dispute before the Mediation Center on 12.12.2023 and the complainant has decided not to pursue the criminal proceedings of the present FIR. Counsel for both parties with consent of both parties verified the factum of compromise.

¶28

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

¶29

“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.”

¶30

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramgopal Vs. The

¶31

State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2022 (14) SCC 531

¶32

observed as follows:

¶33

“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.”

[2024:RJ-JP:6972]

[CRLMP-199/2024]

(3 of 3)

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 petitions.

¶38

As a final result, the present criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and the FIR No.259/2021 registered at P.S. Phagi, Jaipur (Rural) with all consequential proceedings, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶39

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

¶40

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶41

Sachin/247-248

Bhanwar Lal S/O Sujaram Jat, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Lal S/O Sujaram Jat, 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

Amit Kumar S/O Banwari Lal , Vs State of Rajasthan

Garima Chouhan W/O- Dinesh Singh Chouhan, D/O Krishnapal Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Saleem Khan S/O Shri Nijam Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Nandlal S/O Shri Shrichand Vs Union of India

Smt. Ragini Patel W/O Prince Jain D/O Late Sh. Mahendra Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishnu Son of Shri Dharmi, Vs State of Rajasthan