Allowed

Mahipal Godara @ Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Aug 2024CRLMP/685/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a miscellaneous criminal petition quashing FIR No.84/2024 (Sections 420, 406, 407, 120-B IPC) and stay petition based on a compromise. The court applied the impartible ratio of Gian Singh to quash proceedings in a private nature dispute. An earlier FIR (281/2021) under IPC 147, 148, 149, 341, 307, 427 was also sought to be quashed via compromise.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.84/2024 and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner are quashed. Stay petition allowed.

Mahipal Godara @ Kalu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 685/2024

¶3

Mahipal Godara @ Kalu Ram

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Gaurav Singh, P.P.
	Mr. Raju Ram for complainant

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Order

¶10

12/08/2024

¶11

Quashing of an FIR No.281/2021 dated 14.11.2021 lodged at Police Station Dechu, District Jodhpur Rural, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 307 & 427 of IPC, is sought herein on the basis of compromise dated 24.01.2024 arrived between the parties.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that though Section 307 IPC has been invoked but as per complainant’s own subsequent version, the injury suffered by him were not grievous and no ingredients of Section 307 IPC are thus made out. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the

¶13

compromise dated 24.01.2024 between the parties, respondent No.2-complainant is not inclined to press charges against the petitioners and proceed further in the matter, dispute being private in nature between the parties.

¶14

Learned counsel places reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303] . He urges that the impugned FIR and all

¶15

[CRLMP-685/2024]

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

consequential proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant and learned Public Prosecutor concur with the fact of compromise and submit that in view of the compromise, they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶19

In the premise, applying the ratio in decision of Gian Singh (Supra) , I deem it just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to avoid undue hardship to the parties in a dispute, which is of private nature.

¶20

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.84/2024 dated 23.04.2024 lodged at Police Station Airport Jodhpur City East, for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 407 and 120-B of IPC, and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner are hereby quashed.

¶21

Stay petition is also decided accordingly.

¶22

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶23

247-AnilKC/-

¶24

Whether Fit for Reporting – Yes / No

Mahipal Godara @ Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahipal Godara @ Kalu Ram 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

Ashish Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Kumar Paliwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Meghraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Yashoda Bharti Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhu Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajana Alias Rohini Vs State of Rajasthan