Dismissed

Ramashankar Sharma S/O Sitaram Sharma B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2025CRLMP/4256/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners facing trial under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC sought quashing of proceedings after a compromise with the informant led to compounding of only the Section 420 offence. As no prayer was made for compounding the remaining non-compoundable offences, the Court dismissed the petition, leaving the complainant free to approach the Trial Court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ramashankar Sharma S/O Sitaram Sharma B/C Brahmin Vs… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4256/2018

¶3

Ramashankar Sharma S/o Sitaram Sharma, R/o B- 76, Shyam Colony, Near Airport, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶4

Ramawatar Sharma S/o Shri Vijay Lal Sharma, R/o B-76, Shyam Colony, Near Airport, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

Girdhari Lal Dhaka S/o Bhimwa Ram, R/o Village Mithwas, P.S. Mandawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu Working As Police Inspector, Police Station Special And Economic Offences, Jaipur

¶9

Mohammad Muslim Mirza S/o Shri Mirza Khalil Beg, R/o 490, Namak Ki Mandi, P.S. Kotwali, Kishanpol Bazaar, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal with Mr. RK Gouttam

¶12

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Manjeet Sharma for Mr. Kuldeep Sharma

¶13

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

10/01/2025

¶16

By way of filing of this petition, the petitioner is seeking directions for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.97/2011 pending against petitioner before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.33, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶17

[CRLMP-4256/2018]

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are facing trial for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and during the course of trial, compromise has taken place between the informant and the petitioners that is why an application was submitted for compounding the offence under Section 420 IPC. Counsel submits that the said application submitted by the informant was allowed vide order dated 18.03.2017. Counsel submits that since rest of the offences were not compoundable that is why, no such prayer was made in the aforesaid application. Counsel submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the proceedings of the case be quashed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the complainant has supported the version of counsel for the petitioner but the Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer and submitted that the matter has been settled to the extent of Section 420 IPC only with the informant Mohammad Muslim Mirza and the same has not been settled with the other complainant Girdhari Lal. Counsel submits that even in the application filed by the informant, there is no prayer for compounding of rest of the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶21

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

¶22

After taking into consideration the material available on the record and the application (Annexure-3) annexed

¶23

[CRLMP-4256/2018]

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

with the misc. petition, indicate that the prayer of the informant Mohammad Muslim Mirza is confined to compounding of the offence under Section 420 IPC and the said prayer was allowed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 18.03.2017. No prayer has been made for compounding the rest of the offences, therefore, no order can be passed without there being any prayer by the informant/complainant.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. They stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

¶27

However, the complainant would be at liberty to move appropriate application in this regard before the Trial Court. 8. In case, such application is submitted, it is expected from the Trial Court to decide the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶28

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶29

KuD/58

Ramashankar Sharma S/O Sitaram Sharma B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ramashankar Sharma S/O Sitaram Sharma B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Tulsa D/O Shri Hariram, Wife of Shri Nitish Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Daulat S/O Nanulal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Aadil Choudhary S/O Shri Aalam Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Yogesh Attray S/O Shri A.N. Shastri Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Gupta S/O Pyare Lal Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Roshni Sawalni Wife of Shri Ghanshyam Sawlani, Vs State of Rajasthan