Allowed

Dharam Chand Saini and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC22 Feb 2024CRLMP/5143/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two connected criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. CrPC seeking to quash an FIR regarding cheating and property dispute. The Court held that since the private dispute was amicably settled via a compromise, quashing the proceedings was just and proper.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.18/2015 and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.

Dharam Chand Saini and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:9161]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5143/2015

¶4

Dharam Chand Saini S/o Shri Gangaram Saini, R/o G-4, Lalpuria Gagan Apartment, Sector No.2, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Smt. Svaran Rekha W/o Dharam Chand Saini, R/o G-4, Lalpuria Gagan Apartment, Sector No.2, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Deepank Saini S/o Shri Dharam Chand Saini, R/o G-4, Lalpuria Gagan Apartment, Sector No. 2, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Heera Lal Saini S/o Shri Gangaram Saini, Ex-Chairman Fauji Gaon Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti, R/o G-4, Lalpuria Gagan Apartment, Sector No.2, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶8

Smt Santosh Devi W/o Shri Beerbal Saini, R/o T-5, Sector 2, Lalpuria, Gagan Apartment, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5528/2015 Arisudhan Kachava S/o Late Narsingh Kachawa, aged about 75 years, R/o Kachawa House, M.I. Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶15

Smt Santosh Devi W/o Shri Beerbal Saini, R/o T-5, Sector 2, Lalpuria, Gagan Apartment, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Peush Nag Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP Mr. Rajesh Maharishi Mr. V.P. Bishnoi

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order

¶19

22/02/2024

¶20

Both these misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C have been filed seeking to quash the FIR No.18/2015 registered at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (North) for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC in respect of dispute of

[2024:RJ-JP:9161]

[CRLMP-5143/2015]

(2 of 3)

Flat No.T-5, Sector 2, Lalpuria, Gagan Apartment, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.

¶25

Counsel for both parties jointly submits that impugned FIR was lodged in respect of cheating to grab the immovable property of flat in question, but now such property dispute, between the parties has been mutually resolved, with settlement of other property disputes. A written compromise dated 02.08.2022 has been executed between both the parties. The copy of compromise dated 02.08.2022 has been placed on record.

¶26

Counsel for both parties admits that and compromise has been acted upon and now there is no dispute between parties in respect of ownership and possession of the flat in question. 4. 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 may be quashed. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303] observed as follows:

¶27

“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.”

[2024:RJ-JP:9161]

[CRLMP-5143/2015]

(3 of 3)

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [2022 (14) SCC 531

¶32

observed as follows:

¶33

“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.”

¶34

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. petitions.

¶35

As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.18/2015 registered at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (North), are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶36

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

¶37

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶38

SOURAV /29-30

Dharam Chand Saini and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Chand Saini and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

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

Jahid Khan S/O Ajab Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Pappu S/O Heera Lal Rao Vs State of Rajasthan

Nirmal Singh Vs State through Pp and Anr.

Smt Priyanka Meena Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mohammad Imran Ansari S/O Mohammad Hasan Ansari Vs the State of Rajasthan