Allowed

Vinod Son of Shri Shyam Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2025CRLMP/7215/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought quashing of an FIR for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 336 and 379 IPC on the basis of a compromise. The court verified the compromise through the Investigating Officer, found no criminal antecedents, applied Gian Singh and Laxmi Narayan, invoked inherent powers and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 170/2023 registered at Police Station Chiksana for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 336 and 379 IPC quashed.

Vinod Son of Shri Shyam Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7215/2025

¶3

Vinod Son Of Shri Shyam Singh, Resident Of Chokipura, Aghapur, Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶4

Ramvijay Son Of Shri Shyam Singh, Resident Of Chokipura, Aghapur, Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶5

Ajeet Son Of Shri Kamal Singh, Resident Of Chokipura, Aghapur, Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶6

Dara Son Of Shri Bhagwan Singh, Resident Of Chokipura, Aghapur, Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶7

Lokesh Son Of Shri Prem Singh, Resident Of Chokipura, Aghapur, Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶8

Rahul Son Of Shri Ram Singh, Resident Of Chokipura, Aghapur, Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Harnek Singh Son Of Late Shri Amar Singh, Resident Of Nagla Tikaita, Punjabi Ka Nagla, Police Station Chiksana, Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP Mr. Avtar Singh Rathore

¶14

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

02/12/2025

[CRLMP-7215/2025]

(2 of 3)

The present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the FIR No. 170/2023 registered with Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 336 and 379 IPC, on the basis of compromise between the parties.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant are in agreement that the parties have settled their dispute by entering into a compromise and now the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners.

¶21

This Court vide order dated 11.11.2025 directed the parties to appear before the Investigating Officer for verification of the compromise and the Investigating Officer was further directed to submit the verification report along with criminal antecedents of the petitioners.

¶22

Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime and Vigilance) Range, Bharatpur has furnished the verification report which verifies that the parties have settled their dispute and the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioner and the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents.

¶23

Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and looking to the fact that the dispute pertains to personal in nature and the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners and also applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. reported in 2019 (5)

¶24

[CRLMP-7215/2025]

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

SCC 688 , this Court deems it just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court contained under Section 528 BNSS.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands allowed. The impugned FIR No. 170/2023 registered with Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 336 and 379 IPC stands quashed.

¶28

Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶29

The factual report dated 16.11.2025 is ordered to be retained on record.

¶30

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶31

Ashu/147

Vinod Son of Shri Shyam Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Son of Shri Shyam Singh v. the 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

Smt. Anju Modi W/O Kishan Lal Modi Vs State of Rajasthan

Staleena Kar D/O Shri Dilip Kumar Kar W/O Prakhar Garg Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanhaiya Lal Son of Shri Rajaram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Brijlal S/O Shri Banay Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kallo W/O Khushiram, Vs Sate of Rajasthan

Indrajeet Singh Nagar S/O Shri Houtiram Nagar, Vs State of Rajasthan