Allowed

Dayal Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Aug 2024CRLMP/873/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking inherent powers. The court was satisfied that a compromise deed dated 09.04.2024 existed and the complainant had no objection to quashing proceedings, applying the ratio in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab.

What did the court decide?

The F.I.R. No.546/2022 and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 384, 385, 388, 389, 420 and 120-B of IPC are quashed.

Dayal Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:32457]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 873/2024

¶4

Dayal Ram S/o Ghewar Ram Damami, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Joliyali, Jhanwar, Jodhpur.

¶5

Bhanwara Ram S/o Ramchandra Dholi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Finch, Luni, Jodhpur.

¶6

Shailendra Arora S/o Kishan Gopal Arora, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Laxmi Nagar, Barmer.

¶7

Bhagirath Godara S/o Bhikha Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Finch, Luni, Jodhpur.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶11

Ramswaroop S/o Shri Ladu Ram Acharya, R/o Acharyo Ka Bass, Barmer.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Rakesh Gupta a/w Mr. Ravindra Kumar.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP.
		Mr. Kanishk Singhvi(for R.No.2)

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶15

Order

¶16

05/08/2024

¶17

Instant Criminal Misc. Petition for quashing of F.I.R. No.546/2022 dated 29.11.2022 lodged at Police Station Kotwali, District Barmer and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 384, 385, 388, 389, 420 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has already been compromised between the parties as is borne out from the compromise-deed dated 09.04.2024. In view thereof, respondent No.2/complainant is not inclined to press charges against the petitioners and proceed further in the matter. Learned

[2024:RJ-JD:32457]

[CRLMP-7583/2023]

(2 of 2)

counsel has placed 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 consequential proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶22

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.

¶23

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 of Cr.P.C. to avoid undue hardship to the parties.

¶24

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the F.I.R. No.546/2022 dated 29.11.2022 lodged at Police Station Kotwali, District Barmer, and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 384, 385, 388, 389, 420 and 120-B of IPC, against the petitioners are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise deed.

¶25

Stay petition is also decided accordingly.

¶26

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶27

281-Jitender

¶28

Whether fit for reporting- Yes / No

Dayal Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayal 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

Ram Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahak Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Vs State of Rajasthan

Kantilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sushil Jain Vs Sunil Surupriya

Ramdev Vs State of Rajasthan