Disposed

Kaushalya Devi W/O Mahendra Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 May 2025CRLMP/2568/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 528 BNSS to quash FIR No. 583/2024 after parties entered into compromise; court found offences compoundable, Section 110 BNS prima facie not made out, relied on Gian Singh v State of Punjab, and quashed FIR and all subsequent criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 583/2024 PS Gudha, Jhunjhunu and all subsequent criminal proceedings quashed.

Kaushalya Devi W/O Mahendra Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:18555]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2568/2025

¶4

Kaushalya Devi W/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Bagariya Ki Dhani, Tan Gudha Bawni, Police Station Gudha Gorji, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

¶5

Mahendra Singh S/o Sanwarmal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Bagariya Ki Dhani, Tan Gudha Bawni, Police Station Gudha Gorji, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

¶6

Naresh Kumar S/o Mahendra Singh, R/o Bagariya Ki Dhani, Tan Gudha Bawni, Police Station Gudha Gorji, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶10

Kamlesh Devi W/o Raghuveer Singh, R/o Bagadiya Ki Dhani, Tan Gudha Bawani, Police Station Gudha, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

¶11

Raghuveer Singh S/o Harphool Singh,

¶12

Sahiram S/o Harphool Singh, both are R/o Bagadiya Ki Dhani, Tan Gudha Bawani, Police Station Gudha, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Intzar Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Yunus Khan

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶16

Order

¶17

02/05/2025

¶18

Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the FIR No. 583/2024 registered with police station Gudha, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 125 and 351(3) of BNS.

[2025:RJ-JP:18555]

[CRLMP-2568/2025]

(2 of 3)

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that an FIR was lodged against the petitioners by respondent No. 2 Kamlesh Devi alleging offences under Sections 189 (2), 115(2), 126(2), 125, 351(3) of BNS.

¶23

The police after investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 125, 351(3), 110, 3(5) and 117(2) of BNS, and the investigation was kept pending under Section 193(9) of BNSS against the petitioner No. 3.

¶24

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 117(2) are compoundable offences. The injuries sustained to injured Sahiram in CT scan report was found to be without any trauma and intracranial, though the concerned Doctor has opined the injury is grievous but Sahiram did not receive any grievous injury at his head. It is contended that petitioners and complainant Kamlesh Devi, injured Sahiram and Radhuveer Singh have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute with the petitioners. The complainant and injured have submitted their affidavit containing the fact that they have entered into compromise with the petitioners.

¶25

The complainant Kamlesh Devi, injured Sahiram and Raghuveer are present in person before this court and admitted that they have entered into compromise with the petitioners.

¶26

Learned counsel for the complainant and injured concedes that compromise have been arrived at between the parties and they do not want to proceed with the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, therefore, if the entire criminal proceedings

[2025:RJ-JP:18555]

[CRLMP-2568/2025]

(3 of 3)

initiated against the petitioners may be quashed then they have no objection.

¶31

Heard and perused the material available on the record.

¶32

Prima facie the dispute arose between the parties seems to be private litigation, the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 117(2) of BNS are compoundable offences. The injuries sustained to injured Sahiram were not opined to be dangerous to life, therefore the offence under Section 110 of BNS is prima facie not made out against the petitioner.

¶33

Considering the nature of litigation and in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012)10 SCC 303, this court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR No. 583/2024 registered with police station Gudha, District Jhunjhunu and all subsequent criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR.

¶34

Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of.

¶35

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶36

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶37

ashu /27

Kaushalya Devi W/O Mahendra Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushalya Devi W/O Mahendra Singh, 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

Sanjay Kumar S/O Sh. Sardara Ram Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Todi Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ramprakash @ Prakash Son of Shri Mangi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Kumar Choudhary Son of Late Shri Ramnath, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeetu Son of Ramcharan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Pushkar Saini S/O Makhanlal Saini, Vs the State of Rajasthan