Allowed¶32

Rugha Ram S/O Sh. Sultan Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Jan 2025CRLMP/7367/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLMP 7367/2019, Rajasthan High Court Jaipur, Ashutosh Kumar J., decided 06/01/2025. Quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on basis of compromise; matrimonial dispute; Sections 498-A, 406 & 365 IPC; non-compoundable offences; FIR No.280/2019 PS Mahila Thana Jaipur City (East); charge-sheet 11.12.2020; Regular Criminal Case No.271619/2020; reliance on Gian Singh (2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934) and Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604); complainant-wife settled dispute of her own free will with father-in-law and brother-in-law; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed; stay application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Criminal miscellaneous petition allowed; FIR No.280/2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) quashed and all other proceedings arising therefrom also quashed; stay application disposed of. ¶32

Rugha Ram S/O Sh. Sultan Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.280/2019 and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom (Criminal Case No.271619/2020) are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of compromise between the parties, notwithstanding that the alleged offences are non-compoundable.

¶31

Court's answer

The complainant-respondent no.2 admitted the factum of compromise before the Court and stated that she settled the dispute with the petitioners of her own free will; the matter pertains to a matrimonial dispute and the petitioners are the brother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

In the interest of justice and on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the proceedings pending before the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.271619/2020 arising out of FIR No.280/2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) are liable to be quashed.

¶24

Key takeaways

In order to establish harmony between the petitioners and the complainant-respondent no.2 and give quietus to the litigation, it would be expedient that the impugned FIR and criminal proceedings are quashed.ratio¶30
The case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal: criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties although the offences are non-compoundable.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), by order dated 06/01/2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, J.), allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed FIR No.280/2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) under Sections 498-A, 406 & 365 IPC together with all proceedings arising therefrom, including Criminal Case No.271619/2020 (cognizance taken on charge-sheet dated 11.12.2020). The quashing rested on an amicable compromise in a matrimonial dispute: the complainant-respondent no.2 (wife) appeared, was identified, and admitted settling the dispute of her own free will with the petitioners, her father-in-law and brother-in-law. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934) and State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), the Court held that criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed on compromise even though the offences are non-compoundable, to establish harmony between the parties and give quietus to the litigation. The stay application stood disposed of.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:659]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7367/2019

¶4

Rugha Ram S/o Sh. Sultan Ram, R/o B-142, Indra Nagar, Jhunjhunu

¶5

Anil Besarwal S/o Rugha Ram Besarwal, R/o 85-A, Goverdhan Colony, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶9

Dr. Smt. Neelam Singh D/o Sh. Kamal Singh W/o Dr. Raj Kumar Besarwal, Resident Of 87, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Fatak, Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur.

¶10

Smt. Sunita Bayal, S.H.O. Police Station Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar (East) Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripudaman Singh, Adv. & Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Adv. Petitioners-in-person

¶13

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar, Adv. Respondent No.2-in-person

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶15

Order

¶16

06/01/2025

¶17

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.280/2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 & 365 of IPC mainly on the ground that the parties have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute and now no dispute remains between them.

[2025:RJ-JP:659]

[CRLMP-7367/2019]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties submitted that parties have settled their dispute amicably and complainant-respondent no.2 does not want to proceed further in this FIR.

¶22

On 11.12.2020, charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC was filed against the petitioners and Regular Criminal Case No.271619/2020 was registered and cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 406 of IPC.

¶23

During the pendency of this petition, complainant-respondent no.2 Dr. Smt. Neelam Singh settled the dispute with the petitioners amicably. Both the parties submitted an application along with compromise on 09.12.2024 before the learned trial Court, however, further proceedings pending before the learned trial Court have already been stayed by this Court, therefore, the compromise could not be attested.

¶24

Today petitioners and complainant-respondent no.2 are present before this Court and are duly identified by their counsels. 6. This Court has interacted with the complainant and she has admitted the factum of compromise and has stated that she has settled the dispute with the petitioners of her own free will. The matter pertains to matrimonial dispute. Petitioners are brother-inlaw and father-in-law of complainant-respondent no.2, therefore, in the interest of justice and on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, proceedings pending before learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.271619/2020 arising out of FIR No.280/2019

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:659]

[CRLMP-7367/2019]

registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) are liable to be quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available for my perusal, this Court feels that in order to establish harmony between the petitioners and the complainant-respondent no.2 and give quietus to the litigation, it would be expedient that the impugned FIR and criminal proceedings are quashed.

¶31

The present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.-reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604], the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties although the offences are non-compoundable.

¶32

In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and FIR No.280/2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) is quashed and all other proceedings arising out thereof are also quashed. Consequence to follow.

¶33

The stay application also stands disposed of.

¶34

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶35

Mohita /322

Rugha Ram S/O Sh. Sultan Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rugha Ram S/O Sh. Sultan Ram 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

Smt. Sonal Bansal Wife of Late Shri Sunil Bansal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashish Jain @ Ashish Kumar Jain @ Ashish Son of Mahesh Kumar Jain, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Singh Pilwal S/O Babulal Gurjar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Polu Ram @ Labhchand S/O Shri Hanshraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Lokesh Bargoti @ Dr. Lokesh Meena S/O Shri Kanaram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Amiri Devi Wife of Shri Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan