Allowed¶31

Deepak Kumar Choudhary Son of Late Shri Ramnath, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 May 2025CRLMP/2573/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on compromise; SC/ST Act special statute; Section 528 BNSS; FIR No.1046/2023 Police Station Mansarovar Jaipur City (South); Sections 143, 341, 323, 308 IPC compoundable; Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act; Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966; Article 142 Constitution; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; private civil nature of lis; injuries on hands and leg not vital part; compromise deed dated 25.04.2025; complainant no objection; Jaipur.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside of FIR No.1046/2023 (Police Station Mansarovar, District Jaipur City South) with all consequential proceedings, on the ground of compromise entered between the parties; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶31

Deepak Kumar Choudhary Son of Late Shri Ramnath, Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:18578]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2573/2025

¶4

Deepak Kumar Choudhary Son Of Late Shri Ramnath, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 34, Navdeep Vihar, Lalarpura, P.s. Karni Vihar, Jaipur.

¶5

Akash Son Of Shri Dharmendra Choudhary, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 18-19, Navdeep Vihar, Lalarpura, P.s. Karni Vihar, Jaipur.

¶6

Vijay Choudhary Son Of Rajkumar Choudhary, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 18-19, Navdeep Vihar, Lalarpura, P.s. Karni Vihar, Jaipur.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶10

Suresh Dholiwal Son Of Late Shri Ratan Lal, R/o House No. 13/160, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur City South.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naseem Qazi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP For Complainant : Mr. Amir Aziz, Adv.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶14

Order

¶15

02/05/2025

¶16

The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the FIR No.1046/2023, registered at Police Station Mansarovar, District Jaipur City (South) for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 308 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, on the basis of compromise entered between the parties. It is contended that the injured complainant-respondent No.2 Suresh Dholiwal have entered into compromise with the petitioners and executed a compromise deed on 25.04.2025, which bears

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:18578]

[CRLMP-2573/2025]

signature of Suresh Dholiwal. It is also contended that the offence alleged against the petitioners under Section 341 and 323 of IPC are compoundable and prima-facie offence under Section 308 of IPC is not made out against the petitioners. The injuries sustained to injured respondent No.2 Suresh Dholiwal was not on vital part rather was on hands and leg, therefore, in view of the compromise entered between the parties, the FIR registered against the petitioners and subsequent proceedings drawn in pursuance to the FIR may be quashed.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant i.e., respondent No.2 concedes that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement and respondent No.2 Suresh Dholiwal has executed a compromise deed which bears his signature. The complainant Suresh Dholiwal is present before the Court and also stated that he and the petitioners have arrived at compromise and if the proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed then he has no objection. The complainant Suresh Dholiwal has admitted his signatures on compromise deed dated 25.04.2025.

¶22

Heard and considered.

¶23

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar v. State

¶24

of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966 , held that for quashing of FIR on account of compromise in cases pertaining to SC/ST Act: -

¶25

“16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:18578]

[CRLMP-2573/2025]

powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/ settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

¶30

In the view of the aforesaid legal position, considering that compromise has been entered between the parties and that the lis between the parties is private in nature, therefore, I deem it just and proper to allow the present petition.

¶31

Considering the aforementioned, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed on the ground of compromise entered between the parties and the FIR No.1046/2023, registered at Police Station Mansarovar, District Jaipur City (South) with all consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶32

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶33

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR)J

¶34

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-29

Deepak Kumar Choudhary Son of Late Shri Ramnath, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Choudhary Son of Late Shri Ramnath, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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

Jeetu Son of Ramcharan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kaushalya Devi W/O Mahendra Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

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