Allowed

Mahendra Singh Son of Shri Bhanwar Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Feb 2024CRLMP/567/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC in a criminal misc. petition citing amicable compromise. The Court relied on Gian Singh and Bhajan Lal principles to allow quashing despite offences being non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar in Criminal Case No. 29/2013 are quashed and set aside. Stay application disposed of.

Mahendra Singh Son of Shri Bhanwar Singh, Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6881]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 567/2024

¶4

Mahendra Singh Son Of Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Khatushyamji, Police Station Khatushyamji, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj).

¶5

Sajjan Kanwar Wife Of Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Khatushyamji, Police Station Khatushyamji, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

Kalpana Kanwar D/o Shri Gopal Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Khatushyamji, Police Station Khatu Shyamji, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Saini, PP Mr. Anil Agarwal, for complainant

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶13

Order

¶14

09/02/2024

¶15

Petitioner No.1 and complainant/respondent No.2 are present in person and have been duly identified by their respective counsel.

¶16

By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash entire criminal proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danta Ramgarh, Sikar in Criminal Case No.29/2013 (CIS No.849/2014) for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 read with

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:6881]

[CRLMP-567/2024]

Section 120-B of IPC arising out of the FIR No.60/2012 Police Station Danta Ramgarh, Sikar mainly on the ground that the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably and now no dispute remains between them.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent herein submitted a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court. The learned trial court forwarded the same to the concerned Police Station for registration of the FIR, upon which, FIR No.60/2012 came to be registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC against the accused petitioners. The police conducted investigation in the matter and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 465 & 120-B of IPC in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan, who took cognizance against the petitioners. Learned court below framed charges against accused petitioner No.1 Mahendra for offence under Section 420 and 465 IPC and against accused petitioner No.2 Sajjan Kanwar for offences under Sections 420/120-B & 465/120-B of IPC vide orders dated 12.10.2018 & 15.10.2022. However, after passing of the orders, both the parties have entered into compromise and the complainant does not want to pursue her complaint/FIR against the petitioners and hence, this criminal petition has been filed. 4. During the trial, both the parties filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. to permit compounding of the aforesaid offences.

[2024:RJ-JP:6881]

[CRLMP-567/2024]

(3 of 4)

The trial Court partly allowed the application and permitted to compound the offence under Section 420 of IPC vide order dated 26.14.2023 but the prayer in respect of offences under Sections 465, 467 & 468 read with Section 120-B of IPC was refused, as the same are not compoundable.

¶26

In these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition to quash the aforesaid criminal proceedings pending before the trial Court on the ground that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably.

¶27

Learned counsel for the complainant, while accepting the factum of compromise, submits that the complainant has no objection if the proceedings pending against the petitioners are quashed.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made available for my perusal, this Court feels that in order to establish harmony between the parties and give quietus to the litigation, it would be expedient that the impugned proceedings are quashed. 9. The present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by the 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 ] and as such, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties although the offences are not compoundable.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:6881]

[CRLMP-567/2024]

In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danta Ramgarh, Sikar in Criminal Case No.29/2013 (CIS No.849/2014) arising out of the FIR No.60/2012 Police Station Danta Ramgarh, Sikar are quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.

¶33

The stay application also stands disposed of.

¶34

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶35

CHARU SONI /51

Mahendra Singh Son of Shri Bhanwar Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Singh Son of Shri Bhanwar Singh, 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

Vtc Leasing and Finance Ltd. Vs Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal S/O Shri Mohanlal Agarwal

Ishneet Saluja Son of Late Shri Ranjeet Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Boduram Kumawat S/O Shri Narayan Kumawat, Vs Shimbhudayal Agarwal S/O Late Hajari Lal Agarwal

Murli Manohar Naamdev S/O Shri Badri Lal Naama Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Dhaka S/O Kishnaram Dhaka Vs State of Rajasthan

Navjot Kaur W/O Jaspreet Singh D/O Polla Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan