Allowed

Indraraj Saini Son of Late Shri Mool Chand Saini, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Mar 2024CRLMP/278/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan quashed criminal proceedings filed against two petitioners for offences under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B. The court held that since the private dispute was amicably settled by the parties, exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the proceedings were quashed as just and proper.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 293/2023 are quashed, set aside, and all pending applications are disposed of.

Indraraj Saini Son of Late Shri Mool Chand Saini, Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:12053]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 278/2024

¶4

Indraraj Saini Son Of Late Shri Mool Chand Saini, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Main Bus Stand , Near Government School, Village Jaisinghpura Khor, District Jaipur.

¶5

Birdhi Chand Kala Son Of Shri Mota Ram, Resident Of Plot No. 5, Tara Nagar- First, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶9

Smt. Rampali Devi Wife Of Late Shri Kesar Lal Saini, Resident Of Gadli Ki Doongri, Village Jaisinghpura Khor, Jaipur (Raj).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP Mr. Raghuvir Singh Anand for Mr. Takhat Singh

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶13

Order

¶14

11/03/2024

¶15

This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.293/2023, registered at Police Station Jaisinghpura Khor, District Jaipur City (North) for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the IPC.

¶16

It has been contended that allegation against the petitioner is to cheat the complainant and misappropriate her property of three plots, allotted by the Bobadi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. in the residential scheme of Ganpati Nagar A, situated at

[2024:RJ-JP:12053]

[CRLMP-278/2024]

(2 of 3)

Village Jaisinghpura Khor, District Jaipur. During investigation in the impugned FIR, parties have entered into compromise and have mutually settled their property dispute. As per compromise, the complainant does not want to prosecute both petitioners in the impugned FIR. The original compromise has been taken on record. 3. Counsel for both parties jointly submit that dispute between parties is private and personal in nature and parties have entered into compromise, therefore, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC, impugned FIR with all consequential proceedings be quashed.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

“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.”

¶24

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of Ramgopal

¶25

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

¶26

observed as follows:

¶27

“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

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:12053]

[CRLMP-278/2024]

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.”

¶32

In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, and considering the nature of offence and the dispute which is private and personal in nature between parties as much as has been amicably settled, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present misc. petition.

¶33

As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.293/2023, registered at Police Station Jaisinghpura Khor, District Jaipur City (North), are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶34

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

¶35

RONAK/482

Indraraj Saini Son of Late Shri Mool Chand Saini, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indraraj Saini Son of Late Shri Mool Chand Saini, 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

Pawan Tusiya @ Paramanand S/O Laalchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Kajodi Devi Wife of Narendra Alias Pappu Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Abdul Son of Fazru Vs State of Rajasthan

Dallaram Bhatnagar S/O Shri Bakhataram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Indraraj Saini Son of Late Shri Mool Chand Saini, Vs State of Rajasthan

Soniya Daughter of Shri Dholaram, Vs State of Rajasthan