Allowed¶9

Tejesh Suman Son of Mohan Lal Mali, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2025CRLMP/2681/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of F.I.R. on the basis of compromise; Section 482 Cr.P.C. inherent powers invoked despite offences being non-compoundable (Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B I.P.C.); Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 applied; amicable settlement between parties; complainant himself sought closure per investigation factual report No. 1348 dt. 07.07.2024; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench; CRLMP 2681/2024 and connected CRLMP 1307/2023; F.I.R. 295/2022 Police Station Kotwali Baran; petitions allowed; F.I.R. and further proceedings quashed and set aside; stay applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal miscellaneous petitions allowed; F.I.R. No. 295/2022 and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof quashed and set aside; stay application(s) disposed of. ¶9

Tejesh Suman Son of Mohan Lal Mali, Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal miscellaneous petitions allowed; F.I.R. No. 295/2022 and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof quashed and set aside; stay application(s) disposed of.

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether F.I.R. No. 295/2022 and the criminal proceedings arising from it, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B I.P.C., can be quashed under the inherent powers conferred by Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the amicable settlement and joint prayer of the parties, notwithstanding that the offences alleged are non-compoundable.

¶1

Court's answer

Though the offences alleged were non-compoundable, since the parties had settled their dispute amicably and the settlement did not affect public peace and tranquility, the Court deemed it appropriate to quash the F.I.R. and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof, exercising inherent powers consistent with the principle laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ((2012) 10 SCC 303).

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Both connected criminal miscellaneous petitions were allowed and F.I.R. No. 295/2022 together with all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof were quashed and set aside; the pending stay applications stood disposed of.

¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), single Judge (Vinod Kumar Bharwani, J.), order dated 13-02-2025 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2681/2024, connected with CRLMP No. 1307/2023, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of F.I.R. No. 295/2022 of Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B I.P.C. The Public Prosecutor placed on record factual report of investigation No. 1348 dt. 07.07.2024 showing that the complainant (Hariram Airwal/Hari Ram Erwal) had himself submitted a compromise before the Investigating Officer seeking closure; counsel confirmed the amicable settlement and the complainant raised no objection. Though the offences were non-compoundable, the Court, applying Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], held that where offences are personal in nature, do not affect public peace or tranquility and quashing would secure peace and the ends of justice, the High Court should exercise its inherent powers. Finding the settlement did not affect public peace and tranquility, the Court deemed it appropriate to quash the F.I.R. and further proceedings. Petitions allowed; F.I.R. and all proceedings in pursuance thereof quashed and set aside; stay applications disposed of.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:6472]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2681/2024

¶4

Tejesh Suman Son Of Mohan Lal Mali, Resident Of Lanka Colony, Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

Hariram Airwal Son Of Babulal, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Natraj Nagar Baran, District Baran (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1307/2023 Ramanand Sharma Son Of Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Edan Garden, Rajawas Jaipur The Then Commissioner, Municipal Council, Baran, Presently Posted As Dig Stamp-Ii Jaipur.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Hari Ram Erwal Son Of Babulal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Natraj Nagar, Baran, District Baran Presently Holding The Office Counsellor, Ward No. 5, Municipal Council, Baran (Rajasthan).

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Kapil Nagayach
	Mr.	Rajneesh Gupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, P.P. Dhanna Ram

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

¶18

Order

¶19

13/02/2025

¶20

The instant criminal misc. petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No.295/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B I.P.C.

[2025:RJ-JP:6472]

[CRLMP-2681/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report of investigation No.1348 dt.07.07.2024, which is taken on record. As per the factual report, the complainant, namely Hariram Airwal, has himself submitted a compromise before the concerned Investigating Officer and requested to close the case.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute in between the parties has been resolved through an amicable settlement and now, there remains no controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings further.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for complainant admits the factum of compromise and submits that he has no objection if the F.I.R. & the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made herein-above. 6. Heard. Perused the material available on record, more particularly the Police Report, nature of allegation(s) and the compromise deed executed in between the parties.

¶28

The parties have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same. The offence(s) alleged in this matter are non-compoundable, however Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] has propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of

[CRLMP-2681/2024]

[2025:RJ-JP:6472]

(3 of 3)

compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it.

¶33

Here in this case, though the offences are noncompoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that is essential in between the parties which is not affecting public peace & tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash the F.I.R. and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.

¶34

Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and the F.I.R. mentioned above and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof, are hereby quashed & set aside.

¶35

Stay application(s), also stands disposed of.

¶36

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶37

SAHIL SONI /160-161

Tejesh Suman Son of Mohan Lal Mali, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejesh Suman Son of Mohan Lal Mali, 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

Pramesh Kumar Tayal Son of Late Shri Shobha Ram Tayal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Akhil Agarwal S/O Late Shri Vikram Agarwal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Ram S/O Ramlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Lal Yadav S/O Kanhaiya Lal Yadav Vs Shankar Lal Sharma S/O Shri Ramgopal Sharma

Ramanand Sharma Son of Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Sonal Jat and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.