Allowed

Ramesh Kumar Son of Shri Shyamsundar, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2025CRLMP/8453/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings in a trial regarding cheque-bounce, forgery, and criminal-conspiracy after the parties reached a compromise in their civil dispute over immovable property. Despite some charges being non-compoundable, the court held the proceedings to be liable for quashing in light of settled judicial precedents.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 18896/2014 arising from FIR No. 689/2006 were quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise.

Ramesh Kumar Son of Shri Shyamsundar, Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:1471]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8453/2024

¶4

Ramesh Kumar Son Of Shri Shyamsundar, Resident Of 57/1, Pancholi Vihar, Hem Marg, New Sanganer Road, Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj).

¶5

Hanuman Sahay Son Of Shri Ramlal Sharma, Resident Of A- 16, Sain Colony, Badodiya Basti, Railway Station, Jaipur, At Present Resident Of 42/43 Pancholi Vihar, Hem Marg, New Sanganer Road, Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj).

¶6

Babulal Son Of Shri Ramlal Sharma, Resident Of A-16, Sain Colony, Badodiya Basti, Railway Station, Jaipur, At Present Resident Of 42/43 Pancholi Vihar, Hem Marg, New Sanganer Road, Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj).

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶10

Dr. Satish Sharma Son Of Late Shri Balkishan, Resident Of C/o 50 Pancholi Vihar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur (Raj).

¶11

Smt. Indu Sharma Wife Of Dr. Satish Sharma, Resident Of C/o 50 Pancholi Vihar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur (Raj).

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Iskandh Sharma, Adv. for respondent nos. 2 & 3

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order

¶15

09/01/2025

¶16

This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed for quashing of criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No.18896/2014 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramesh Kumar @ Ranu & Ors. for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC arising out of FIR No. 689/2006 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) on the basis of compromise.

[CRLMP-8453/2024]

[2025:RJ-JP:1471]

(2 of 3)

As per the brief facts of the case, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC before the trial Court. During the pendency of the trial, both the parties have arrived at compromise and filed an application before the trial Court along with the compromise.

¶21

Learned trial Court has attested the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 406 IPC only, as both the offences are compoundable, however, refused to attest the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC as these offences are non-compoundable vide order dated 28.11.2024.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that this matter is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble 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]. Learned counsel also submits that the matter between the parties is of civil nature pertaining to sale of an immovable property and the parties have amicably settled their dispute, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served if the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners are allowed to continue even after the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainantrespondent Nos.2 & 3 accepts the factum of compromise between the parties.

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:1471]

[CRLMP-8453/2024]

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

¶28

In view of the aforesaid and considering the fact that the parties have resolved their disputes amicably and also considering that 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 under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC are non-compoundable.

¶29

In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan First (Raj.) in Criminal Case No.18896/2014 arising out of FIR No. 689/2006 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) are quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Consequence to follow.

¶30

The stay application also stands disposed of.

¶31

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶32

Mohita /310

Ramesh Kumar Son of Shri Shyamsundar, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Son of Shri Shyamsundar, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pooja Jangid Wife of Shri Rakesh Khorwal Daughter of Shri Om Prakash Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Singh S/O Shri Phool Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Victim Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Sajna Devi W/O Surendra Singh Vs I.F.F.C.O. Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

Ayub Ali Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Umesh Soni S/O Shri Govind Narayan Soni Vs State of Rajasthan