Allowed

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

Rajasthan HC11 Mar 2024CRLMP/279/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C sought quashing of criminal proceedings arising from an FIR involving property dispute. The High Court, noting the mutual settlement and private nature of the dispute, exercised inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.307/2023 and all pending applications are quashed and set aside.

Indraraj Saini Son of Late Shri Mool Chand… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:12054]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 279/2024

¶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

Soniya Saini Wife Of Shri Sitaram Saini, Resident Of 275, Gadli Ki Doongri, 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.307/2023, registered at Police Station Jaisinghpura Khor, District Jaipur City (North) for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the IPC.

¶16

It has been contended that the FIR has been lodged in respect of raising dispute of plots, allotted by the Bobadi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. in the residential scheme of Ganpati Nagar A, situated at Village Jaisinghpura Khor, District Jaipur. During investigation in the impugned FIR, in respect of such

[2024:RJ-JP:12054]

[CRLMP-279/2024]

(2 of 3)

dispute both parties have entered into compromise and have mutually settled the 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶25

“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

¶26

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-279/2024]

¶27

[2024:RJ-JP:12054]

¶28

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are noncompoundable.”

¶29

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 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.

¶30

As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.307/2023, registered at Police Station Jaisinghpura Khor, District Jaipur City (North), are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶31

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

¶32

(SUDESH BANSAL), J

¶33

RONAK/483

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