Allowed

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

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2025CRLMP/7642/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal misc. petitions sought quashing of FIR No.36/2024 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC on the ground of compromise between the parties. The court verified the compromise, noted payment to the complainant, relied on Gian Singh and Bhajan Lal, and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Sonal Bansal Wife of Late Shri Sunil Bansal, Vs… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:426]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7642/2024

¶4

Smt. Sonal Bansal Wife Of Late Shri Sunil Bansal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Kherapati Mohalla, Arya Samaj Road, Bharatpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor. 2. Mahesh Chand Gupta Son Of Late Shri Shooraj Bhan Gupta, Resident Of F-3, 11/107 Vijay Enclave, Society Kamala Nehru Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj).

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6792/2024

¶11

Abhinav Bansal Son Of Late Shri Sunil Bansal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Kherapati Mohalla, Arya Samaj Road, Bharatpur.

¶12

Megha Bansal Daughter Of Late Shri Sunil Bansal, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Kherapati Mohallah, Arya Samaj Road, Bharatpur.

¶13

----Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor. 2. Mahesh Chand Gupta Son Of Late Shri Shooraj Bhan Gupta, Resident Of F-3, 11/107 Vijay Enclave, Society Kamala Nehru Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj).

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhlesh Katara, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Babulal Jogi, Adv. & Mr. Yenu Satyam, Adv.

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order

¶19

03/01/2025

¶20

By way of these criminal misc. petitions under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 for quashing of FIR No.36/2024 registered at Police Station Bhankarota, District Jaipur Metro (West) for the offences

[2025:RJ-JP:426]

[CRLMP-7642/2024]

(2 of 3)

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B 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.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties submitted that parties have settled their dispute amicably and complainant does not want to proceed further in this FIR. 3. On 09.12.2024, parties were directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer was directed to verify the compromise and submit its report. Therefore, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted factual report dated 03.01.2025 sent by the Station House Officer, Bhankarota, Jaipur (West), in which it has been mentioned that the complainant and petitioners appeared before the Investigating Officer and submitted that they have settled their dispute by way of compromise. Case diary is also produced before this Court in which the compromise deed is annexed and in the compromise deed, it has been mentioned that the complainant does not want any action against the petitioners and that the accused petitioners have paid Rs.30,00,000/- to the complainant-Mahesh Chand Gupta and he has accepted the amount.

¶26

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

¶27

In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made available for my perusal; considering that as per the compromise the petitioners have paid Rs.30,00,000/- to the complainant and

[CRLMP-7642/2024]

[2025:RJ-JP:426]

(3 of 3)

thus, the dispute which is essentially a civil dispute has been resolved amicably, this Court feels that in order to establish harmony between the petitioners and the complainant and give quietus to the litigation, it would be expedient that the impugned FIR is quashed.

¶32

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 FIR is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties although the offences are not compoundable.

¶33

In view of the above, these criminal misc. petitions are allowed and FIR No.36/2024 registered at Police Station Bhankarota, District Jaipur Metro (West) is quashed and all other proceedings arising out thereof are also quashed. Consequence to follow.

¶34

The stay applications also stand disposed of.

¶35

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶36

Mohita /200-201

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anal Jibrile Ansari S/O Shri Shokat Ali Ansari Vs State of Rajasthan

Sachin Son of Nemichand Vs State of Rajasthan

Nazim S/O Nasruddin 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

Mukesh Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Kanhaiyalal Vs Murarilal Son of Shri Manoharlal