Allowed

Premchand Raigar S/O Mangal Chand Raigar, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Feb 2024CRLMP/458/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash FIR No. 349/2023. The court held that since the dispute regarding a transfer certificate was private and amicably settled, the proceedings could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relying on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 349/2023 and all consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside.

Premchand Raigar S/O Mangal Chand Raigar, Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:7752]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 458/2024

¶4

Premchand Raigar S/o Mangal Chand Raigar, Resident Of Village Achrol, Tehsil Chandwaji, District Jaipur Rural (Raj.) Police Station Losal, Chandwaji.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

¶8

Station House Officer, Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur Rural.

¶9

Dharmendra Kumar Raigar S/o Jagdish Prasad Raigar, Resident Of Baldas Ji Ke Manir Ke Pass, Raigar Mohalla, Anchrol, District Jaipur Rural (Raj.) At Present Posted As Principal Govt. English Medium School, Achrol, District Jaipur Rural

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tailor For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP Mr. Honey Saini

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶13

Order

¶14

14/02/2024

¶15

Instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed, seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.(*)349/2023 for offences u/s 323, 353, 504 and 427 of IPC registered at Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur Rural.

¶16

It has been submitted that the dispute between parties is regarding issuance of transfer certificate to complainant’s son and during course of criminal proceedings, parties have entered into compromise and an affidavit dated 18.01.2024 has been submitted by the complainant stating that he does not want to pursue the impugned FIR. The original affidavit dated 18.01.2024 has been placed on record.

[2024:RJ-JP:7752]

[CRLMP-458/2024]

(2 of 3)

Counsel for both parties jointly submit that since the 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

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 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.”

¶28

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

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:7752]

[CRLMP-458/2024]

parties as much as has been amicably settled, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present misc. petitions.

¶33

As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. (*)349/2023 for offences u/s 323, 353, 504 and 427 of IPC registered at Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur Rural, are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶34

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

¶35

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶36

NITIN /486

¶37

(*) Reference of FIR No.349/2023 has been

¶38

corrected pursuant to order dated 22.02.2024

Premchand Raigar S/O Mangal Chand Raigar, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premchand Raigar S/O Mangal Chand Raigar, 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

Vikas Kumar Bairwa @ Vikki S/O Meghraj Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Singh Rathore and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Fahed Khan S/O Shri Firoz Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kallu @ Dharmendra Singh S/O Shri Bhanwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shrup Khan @ Sarup @ Shahrukh S/O Kala Kha Vs State of Rajasthan

Mamata Jakhar W/O Prahlad Jat D/O Shivram Jakhar, Vs State of Rajasthan