Allowed

Mustak Mohammad S/O Najar Mohammad, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2024CRLMP/4053/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR registered for offences under IPC Sections 143, 341, 323, and 307. The petitioners, accused persons, established a valid compromise with the complainant, leading to the quashing of criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The conjoint prayer for quashing of FIR No. 209/2024 dated 30.04.2024 and all consequential criminal proceedings arising out thereof.

Mustak Mohammad S/O Najar Mohammad, Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50348]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4053/2024

¶4

Mustak Mohammad S/o Najar Mohammad, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 1309, Fakiro Ka Mohalla, Chhipabarod, District Baran.

¶5

Rijwan S/o Abdul Mubarik, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Naya Mohalla, Ward No. 30, Chhipabarod, District Baran.

¶6

Arish S/o Siraj, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Naya Mohalla, Ward No. 30, Chhipabarod, District Baran.

¶7

Manjur Khan S/o Abdul Khali, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 1355, Ward No. 31, Fakiro Ki Basti, Purv Ki Or, Chhipabarod, District Baran.

¶8

Tofik Ali S/o Mushtak Ali, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Ward No. 30, Naya Mohalla, Chhipabarod, District Baran.

¶9

Tokir S/o Mustar Ahmad, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Mustar Ahmad, R/o Ward No. 30, Naya Mohalla, Chhipabarod, District Baran.

¶10

Tosib Ali S/o Mustak Ali, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Mustak Ali, R/o Ward No. 30, Naya Mohalla, Chhipabarod, District Baran.

¶11

----Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Soyab S/o Mahbub Ali, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Chhipabarod, District Baran.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP & Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Anurag Chahar, Adv. & Mr. Suraj K. Dixit, Adv. for Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat, Adv.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶17

Order

¶18

06/12/2024

¶19

Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 6 and respondent No.2 are present-

¶20

in-person and are duly identified by their respective counsel.

[2024:RJ-JP:50348]

[CRLMP-4053/2024]

(2 of 3)

By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.209/2024 dated 30.04.2024 registered at Police Station Chhipabarod, District Baran for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323 & 307 of IPC on the ground that the parties have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute and now no dispute remains between them.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties have submitted that parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute, therefore, FIR No. 209/2024 be quashed on the basis of compromise. Affidavit of complainant-Soyab is also annexed with the petition, in which he accepts the factum of compromise and he does not want to proceed further in the matter.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid and considering the fact that the parties have resolved their disputes amicably and also considering that the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604], the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.

[2024:RJ-JP:50348]

[CRLMP-4053/2024]

(3 of 3)

In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and FIR No.209/2024 dated 30.04.2024 registered at Police Station Chhipabarod, District Baran all the criminal proceedings arising out thereof are quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.

¶32

The stay application also stands disposed of.

¶33

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶34

Mohita/286

Mustak Mohammad S/O Najar Mohammad, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustak Mohammad S/O Najar Mohammad, 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

Bharat Raj Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Bheem Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Raghuveer Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Sonu Ali S/O Munna Vs State of Rajasthan

Somdutt S/O Shri Biharilal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Mittal S/O Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, Vs State of Rajasthan