Allowed

Vishnu Son of Shri Dharmi, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Feb 2024CRLMP/519/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, and 504 IPC. The dispute was personal and had been amicably settled between the parties with the complainant consenting to the withdrawal of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.431/2023 registered at PS Kherli, District Alwar with all consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside.

Vishnu Son of Shri Dharmi, Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6984]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 519/2024

¶4

Vishnu Son Of Shri Dharmi, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Dhahreem, Police Station Kherli, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar (Raj)

¶5

Ramdas Son Of Shri Dharmi, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Dhahreem, Police Station Kherli, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar (Raj)

¶6

Bhagwati Wife Of Shri Ramdas, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Dhahreem, Police Station Kherli, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar (Raj)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶10

Ramkhiladi @ Khiladi Son Of Shri Dharmi, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Dhahreen, Police Station Kherli, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar (Raj)

¶11

Premraj Son Of Shri Sukaram, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Dhahreen, Police Station Kherli, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar (Raj)

¶12

Man Singh Saini Son Of Shri Ramkhiladi, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Dhahreen, Police Station Kherli, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar (Raj)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶16

Order

¶17

09/02/2024

¶18

Accused-petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the FIR No.431/2023 registered at PS Kherli, District Alwar for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341 &

[CRLMP-519/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:6984]

(2 of 3)

504 IPC, on the basis of compromise arrived at between both parties.

¶23

Allegation in the FIR is in respect of scuffle entered into between parties and due to such incident, the complainant lodged the impugned FIR for the alleged offences.

¶24

It has been submitted that the dispute, between parties which is personal in nature, has amicably been settled and the complainant has decided not to pursue the criminal proceedings of the present FIR. The original compromise has been placed on record.

¶25

Counsel for both parties with consent of both parties, who are present in person, verified the factum of compromise. The original compromise is taken on record.

¶26

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:6984]

[CRLMP-519/2024]

(3 of 3)

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

¶32

“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.”

¶33

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 and private in nature, and has been amicably settled between parties, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the present miscellaneous petition.

¶34

As a final result, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the FIR No.431/2023 registered at PS Kherli, District Alwar with all consequential proceedings, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶35

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

¶36

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶37

Sachin/264

Vishnu Son of Shri Dharmi, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Son of Shri Dharmi, 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

Amit Kumar S/O Banwari Lal , Vs State of Rajasthan

Garima Chouhan W/O- Dinesh Singh Chouhan, D/O Krishnapal Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Saleem Khan S/O Shri Nijam Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal S/O Sujaram Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Nandlal S/O Shri Shrichand Vs Union of India

Smt. Ragini Patel W/O Prince Jain D/O Late Sh. Mahendra Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan