Allowed

Ramkesh Meena S/O Shri Battu Lal Meena, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Dec 2024CRLMP/8280/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a petition quashing criminal proceedings for Section 120-B IPC. Discharging petitioners from this charge upon verifying the dispute settlement between parties and invoking inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners discharged from charge under Section 120-B IPC; proceedings quashed; pending applications disposed of.

Ramkesh Meena S/O Shri Battu Lal Meena, Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50558]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.8280/2024

¶4

Ramkesh Meena S/o Shri Battu Lal Meena, R/o A-62 Udai Nagar, Mansarovar Metro Station Jaipur City (South), Rajasthan.

¶5

Maya Devi W/o Shri Ramkesh Meena, R/o A-62 Udai Nagar, Mansarovar Metro Station Jaipur City (South), Rajasthan.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan through PP

¶9

Dhara Goud S/o Kalyan Sahay, R/o 42 Rupnagar Mali Ki Kothi, Lakhesra Road, Jaipur City (South), Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Prasad Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP Mr. Mahesh Chand Meena

¶12

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

09/12/2024

¶15

The present misc. petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of the proceedings of CNR No.31/2022 pending before the Court of ACMM No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-I on the basis of compromise entered between the parties.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that owing to dispute between the parties, an FIR was registered by the complainant against the petitioners, wherein after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC before the trial Court, but during pendency of the trial, good sense prevailed between the parties and the

[2024:RJ-JP:50558]

[CRLMP-8280/2024]

(2 of 3)

complainant submitted an application for compounding the offence. Counsel submits that the application submitted by the petitioners was partly allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 23.10.2024 and the offence under Sections 420 & 406 IPC were compounded as the same was compoundable in nature and the prayer for compounding the offence under Section 120-B IPC was declined as the offence in not compoundable. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan reported in 2019 (5) SCC 688 . Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the proceedings pending against the petitioners under Section 120-B IPC be quashed.

¶21

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶22

Perusal of the record indicates that the trial Court has verified the compromise vide order dated 23.10.2024 to the extent of the offence under Sections 420 & 406 IPC and discharged the petitioners from the charge under Sections 420 & 406 IPC, however, the trial Court has declined to verify the compromise with regard to the offence under Section 120-B IPC on the ground that the said offence is not compoundable.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties and looking to the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and now the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners and the alleged offence is an offence of personal nature and also applying the principles laid down by the

¶24

[2024:RJ-JP:50558]

¶25

[CRLMP-8280/2024]

¶26

Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Gian Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court contained under Section 528 BNSS.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands allowed. The petitioners are discharged from the charge under Section 120-B IPC in CNR No.31/2022 pending before the Court of ACMM No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-I.

¶28

The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶29

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶30

Karan/66

Ramkesh Meena S/O Shri Battu Lal Meena, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkesh Meena S/O Shri Battu Lal Meena, 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

Satish @ Satya Narayan Son of Shri Devpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramraj Son of Shri Gopal Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Siddharth Singh S/O Shri Digvijay Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilip Srivastava S/O Shri Radha Govind Srivastava Vs State of Rajasthan

Rishi Raj Meena @ Rishi @ Peshkar @ Manoj Son of Ramphal Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramkesh Meena S/O Shri Battu Lal Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan