Allowed

Amit S/O Sh. Jagdish, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Feb 2024CRLMP/471/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition quashing an FIR lodged for personal disputes involving assault and criminal intimidation. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court held that since the parties amicably settled the dispute and the complainant consented via affidavit, quashing was just and proper.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 210/2023 registered at Police Station Narayanpur, District Kotputli-Behror and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.

Amit S/O Sh. Jagdish, Vs State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:5522]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 471/2024

¶4

Amit S/o Sh. Jagdish, R/o Village Mundawara, Tehsil Narayanpur District Kotputli - Behror (Raj).

¶5

Mehar Singh S/o Sh. Balvir Jat, R/o Bamanwas Kakad, Tehsil Narayanpur District Kotputli - Behror (Raj).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶9

Dharmpal Jat S/o Sh. Hariram Jat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Mundawara, Tehsil Narayanpur, District Kotputli- Behror (Raj).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manjeet Kumar Dabas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, PP Mr. Vikash Kumar Jakhar

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶13

Order

¶14

01/02/2024

¶15

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed seeking to quash the FIR No. 210/2023 registered at Police Station Narayanpur, District Kotputli-Behror for offences under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506 & 34 IPC and on the basis of compromise arrived at between both parties.

¶16

It has been submitted that the impugned FIR was registered by the complainant in respect of scuffle between parties at Hotel. The accused persons have no any other criminal case. Both parties have amicably settled their dispute and the complainant has decided not to pursue criminal proceedings of the present FIR. The Complainant has also executed an affidavit in this regard and no

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:5522]

[CRLMP-471/2024]

objection to quash the impugned FIR. The said affidavit is taken on record.

¶21

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

¶22

“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.”

¶23

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

¶24

“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.”

¶25

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 in nature as also in view of affidavit submitted by the complainant, the dispute has been amicably settled between parties, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the present miscellaneous petition.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:5522]

[CRLMP-471/2024]

As a final result, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the FIR No. 210/2023 registered at Police Station Narayanpur, District Kotputli-Behror with all consequential proceedings, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶30

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

¶31

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶32

TN/471

Amit S/O Sh. Jagdish, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit S/O Sh. Jagdish, 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

Shivdutt Sharma Son of Shri Dev Karan Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep @ Solet S/O Kaluram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rehnuma Kureshi Wife of Shri Tosheef D/O Shokat Kureshi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Divya Saini D/O Shankar Lal Saini, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kavita Yadav Wife of Shri Rajendra Yadav Daughter of Shri Kajod Mal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Abhishek Lodha S/O Shri Sushil Lodha Vs State of Rajasthan