Allowed

Abdul Majid S/O Abdul Gaffar B/C Musalman v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Feb 2024CRLMP/714/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR and consequential proceedings alleging cheating and forgery following a verified compromise between the accused-petitioner and the complainant regarding land plot allotment.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 274/2015 registered at P.S. Amer, Jaipur (North) along with all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.

Abdul Majid S/O Abdul Gaffar B/C Musalman… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:9681]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 714/2019

¶4

Abdul Majid S/o Abdul Gaffar B/c Musalman, Aged About 36 Years, R/o House No.742, Near Choti Masjid Chini Ki Burj, Gangori Bazar, Jaipur, Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

¶8

Dinesh Kumar Meena S/o Ramphool Meena B/c Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Bad Rasulpura, Tehsil Jamvaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohammad Akbar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, PP Mr. Kamlesh Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order

¶12

26/02/2024

¶13

By way of instant petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, a prayer has been made by accused-petitioner, to quash the FIR No.274/2015 registered at P.S. Amer, Jaipur (North) for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, on the basis of compromise arrived at between both parties.

¶14

It has been pointed out that non petitioner No.2-complainant lodged impugned FIR in connection with plots, which were allotted to him, however, thereafter, the complainant has been allotted another plots in lieu of plots in question. A compromise has been entered into between parties and both parties jointly submitted to quash the impugned FIR in terms of the compromise.

¶15

This Court vide order dated 16.04.2019, issued directions to the trial Court to verify the factum of compromise after recording statements of parties.

[2024:RJ-JP:9681]

[CRLMP-714/2019]

(2 of 3)

In compliance of the order dated 16.04.2019, the trial Court recorded statements of parties including the petitioner and complainant and other two witnesses, thereafter, the compromise has been verified vide order dated 02.07.2019. The trial Court has recorded that the original compromise is available in the case diary, which has also been verified as observed in the order dated 04.07.2019. Copies of compromise duly attested by the trial Court and the order dated 02.07.2019 and 04.07.2019 are available on record.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record factual report pointing out that since parties entered into compromise and settled their dispute, hence no dispute remains survive in the impugned FIR. It has also been pointed out that one FIR No.40/2016 has also been quashed in view of settlement arrived at between parties.

¶21

It has jointly been prayed that since the dispute between parties, which is private and personal in nature so also amicably settled by way of compromise, which has been verified by the trial Court, the impugned FIR along with all consequential proceedings be quashed.

¶22

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303] observed as follows:

¶23

“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

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:9681]

[CRLMP-714/2019]

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.”

¶28

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

¶29

“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.”

¶30

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.

¶31

As a final result, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the FIR No.274/2015 registered at P.S. Amer, Jaipur (North) with all consequential proceedings, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶32

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

¶33

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶34

Sachin/82

Abdul Majid S/O Abdul Gaffar B/C Musalman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Majid S/O Abdul Gaffar B/C Musalman 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

Aasif @ Golu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt. Ranjana Kumari Daughter of Late Shri Richhpal Singh, Wife of Shri Rakesh Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kasim @ Pav S/O Shri Mahmood Hasan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bharat Singh S/O Shir Phool Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mrs Krishana Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Smt. Sampat Wife of Late Shri Kaluram Vs State of Rajasthan