Allowed

Kamal Kumar S/O Shri Roshan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Feb 2024CRLMP/8251/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court allowed criminal miscellaneous petition quashing FIR and consequent proceedings. Court relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence to quash offences upon finding the dispute was amicably settled and nature was not serious.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 958/2021 registered at Police Station Behror, Alwar are quashed and set aside.

Kamal Kumar S/O Shri Roshan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6015]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8251/2021

¶4

Kamal Kumar S/o Shri Roshan Lal, R/o Kabadiwali Gali, Behror, District Alwar (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

Sumit Kumar S/o Shri Umrao Singh, R/o Ward No. 10, Shiv Mandir Ke Pass, Khetri, Police Station Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, At Present Assistant Engineer, Muncipal Office Behror, District Alwar.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahla, PP Mr. Rakesh Kumar Trivedi

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

05/02/2024

¶14

Instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed, seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.(*) 958/2021 for offences u/s 353, 504 and 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Behror, Alwar.

¶15

It has been submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the complainant on telephonic threat by the petitioner to carry out some official work, however, later on parties admits that the FIR was registered under some misunderstanding/ misconception of facts and have entered into compromise and the compromise dated 28.06.2023 has been placed on record.

¶16

Counsel for both parties jointly submit that looking to the nature of accusation, offence is not serious and parties have

[2024:RJ-JP:6015]

[CRLMP-8251/2021]

(2 of 3)

entered into compromise, therefore, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC, impugned FIR with all consequential proceedings be quashed.

¶21

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

¶24

Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [2022 (14) SCC 531

¶25

observed as follows:

¶26

“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.”

¶27

In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, and considering the nature of accusation, wherein the offence may not be treated as of serious nature, as much as disputed has been amicably settled between parties, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to allow

¶28

[2024:RJ-JP:6015] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8251/2021]
present misc. petitions.
6. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petition is
allowed and criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.(*) 958/2021
registered at Police Station Behror, Alwar, are hereby quashed and
set aside.
7. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶29

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶30

NITIN /287 (*) Reference of FIR No.958/2021 has been corrected pursuant to order dated 20.02.2024.

Kamal Kumar S/O Shri Roshan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kumar S/O Shri Roshan Lal 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

Parmeshwar Fagediya @ Pramod S/O Shri Birmaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ankit Kumar S/O Shri Rajuram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sardar S/O Shri Bhanwar Lal Gurjar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra @ Jeetu S/O Shri Dhoop Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj @ Golu S/O Rajendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sahil Khan Son of Raseed Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan