Allowed

Tarsem Kumar S/O Shri Maruram, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2025CRLMP/427/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, High Court quashed criminal proceedings pending for Sections 279 & 304-A IPC offences where accused and r entered into a mutual compromise. Court held no useful purpose serves continuance trial given settlement and reliance on Gian Singh precedent under Section 528 BNSS 2023.

What did the court decide?

F.I.R. No.166/2013 and subsequent criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.18304/2014 stood quashed.

Tarsem Kumar S/O Shri Maruram, Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:5628]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 427/2025

¶4

Tarsem Kumar S/o Shri Maruram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Raniwala , Tehsil- Malout, Distt. Mukatsar ( Punjab).

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶8

Late Shyam Singh S/o Durjan Singh Rajput, R/o House No. 294, Chhipiwada, P.s. Bachhapuri, Jaipur (Raj).

¶9

Smt. Saroj Kanwar W/o Late Mangal Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 93, Jeenmata Nagar, Shekhawat Marg, Harnathpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur (Raj).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prince Pal Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Allan Massey, Advocate Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order

¶13

07/02/2025 :

¶14

Instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred on behalf of the accusedpetitioner with the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him in the Court of Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, (for short ‘the trial Court’) in connection with Criminal Case No.18304/2014 arising out of F.I.R. No.166/2013 registered at Police Station, Jaipur City (South) for offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C., in terms of compromise.

¶15

In the present case, during trial, the accused-petitioner and the respondent No.3 have entered into a compromise dt.06.01.2025 and the dispute between them have been settled amicably. The parties moved a compromise application before the trial Court for attesting the compromise for offences under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C. The trial

¶16

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-427/2025]

¶17

[2025:RJ-JP:5628]

¶18

Court, vide its order dated 06.01.2025 has refused to attest the compromise for the aforesaid offences as the same are noncompoundable. The respondent has also filed an application to withdraw all the allegations against the petitioner on the basis of compromise.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has argued that the respondents & the petitioner have already entered into a compromise. It is further argued that since the compromise has been arrived at between the parties by way of mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the trial against the petitioner for the alleged offences as the same may derail the compromise arrived at between them.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the submissions made herein-above, whereas learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection, if the proceedings for the alleged offences are dropped against the petitioner, as the parties have already entered into a compromise.

¶21

Having considered the overall facts & circumstances of the case & looking to the fact that since the compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner & the respondent, there is no possibility of the petitioner being convicted in the case pending against him before the Court concerned and no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending.

¶22

Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, JT 2012 (9) S.C. 426, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner

[CRLMP-427/2025]

[2025:RJ-JP:5628]

(3 of 3)

can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023.

¶27

Accordingly, instant petition is allowed. The F.I.R. No.166/2013 registered at Police Station, Jaipur City (South) for offences under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C., alongwith all subsequent criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in Criminal Case No.18304/2014, is, hereby, quashed.

¶28

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶29

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J.

¶30

ASHOK/

Tarsem Kumar S/O Shri Maruram, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarsem Kumar S/O Shri Maruram, 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

Dhool Chand S/O Shri Shankar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalita Devi W/O Shri Heeranand Vs Secretary

Jarnel Singh S/O Shri Variyam Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Khedwal Brothers Vs Brij Mohan Agrawal S/O Shri Ramphool Agrawal

Anirudh Vyas S/O Late Shri Harish Vyas, Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalit Kumar S/O Shri Bainiram, Vs State of Rajasthan