Allowed

Anshul Son of Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Jan 2024CRLMP/6543/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR for IT Act offences under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that a private settlement justifies quashing proceedings even for non-compoundable offences, as continuing the trial serves no purpose.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.804/2018 and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.

Anshul Son of Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:830]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6543/2023

¶4

Anshul Son Of Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of A-112, Pocket A-1, Mayur Vihar Phase-3, New Delhi Office Address Computer Science Corporation A- 44/45, Noida Tower, Dlf It Park, Sector 62 Noida, Up.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.

¶8

Smt. Deepti Wife Of Shri Anshul, Resident Of House No. H.i. 704, Pratap Apartments, Rajasthan Housing Board, Sector 29, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP Mr. Aditya Jain

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order

¶12

05/01/2024

¶13

Instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed, seeking to quash FIR No.804/2018 for offences u/s 43, 65, 66C, 66D and 72 of the IT Act registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur City (East), on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties.

¶14

It has been submitted that during course of criminal proceedings, parties have entered into compromise and the compromise under the signature of both parties were presented before the trial Court. The trial Court took the compromise on record, yet not attest the same since offences are noncompoundable. Copy of the order-sheet dated 15.09.2023 of the

[2024:RJ-JP:830]

[CRLMP-6543/2023]

(2 of 3)

trial Court as well as copy of compromise dated 03.05.2023 are placed on record.

¶19

Counsel for both parties, in presence of 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.

¶20

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State

¶21

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 another case of Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [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.”

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:830]

[CRLMP-6543/2023]

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, no fruitful purpose would serve in continuing the criminal prosecution and criminal trial may be treated as sheer wastage of Court’s time so also an unwarranted trial, in such circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present misc. petitions.

¶29

As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and FIR No.804/2018 registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur City (East) with all consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶30

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

¶31

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶32

NITIN /878

Anshul Son of Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshul Son of Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma 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

Dilkhush Gurjar Son of Hansraj Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjundas Rathi S/O Keshavlal Rathi Vs Vinit Shrimal S/O Ramesh Chand Shrimal

Manisha W/O Shri Narendra Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramji Lal Meena S/O Shri Nonda Ram Meena B/C Meena Vs the Govt. of Rajasthan

Yatesh Mehta Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Smt. Laxmi Devi Agarwal Wife of Shri Jugal Kishor Agarwal, Vs State of Rajasthan