Quashed

Dipendra @ Deepu Son of Shri Gangadhar, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Feb 2025CRLMP/8547/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 653/2024 at Police Station Industrial Area, Sikar under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) BNS 2023, as a compromise had been reached between the parties during investigation and verified by the investigating officer's factual report. Relying on Gian Singh and Bhajan Lal principles, the court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 653/2024 and all consequential proceedings and pending applications were ordered to be quashed.

Dipendra @ Deepu Son of Shri Gangadhar, Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8547/2024

¶3

Dipendra @ Deepu Son Of Shri Gangadhar, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Sadinsar, Police Station Ramgarh Sethal, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶4

Deendayal Son Of Shri Gangadhar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Sadinsar, Police Station Ramgarh Sethan, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶5

Manoj Son Of Shri Bhanwar Lal Thethaliya, Resident Of Sikar, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶9

Ankit Son Of Shriu Kuldeep Singh, Resident Of Jajusar, Police Station Mukundgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh Rathore, P.P. Mr. Ajit Singh

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

¶13

Order

¶14

11/02/2025

¶15

1- ;kphx.k dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk Fkkuk m|ksx uxj] ftyk lhdj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 653@2024 varxZr /kkjk 316¼2½] 318¼4½ Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk] 2023 dks jkthukes ds vk/kkj ij jn~n djk;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

¶16

2- ;kphx.k dh vksj ls fo}ku vf/koDrk us dFku fd;k fd nkSjkus vuqla/kku i{kdkjku ds e/; LosPN;k ls fnukad 13-12-2024 dks jkthukek gks pqdk gSA jkthukek i=koyh esa layXu gSA vr% i{kdkjku ds e/; gq, jkthukes dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks jn~n fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA

¶17

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-8547/2024]

¶18

3- fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk mDr rdksZa dk fojks/k djrs gq, ;kfpdk dks [kkfjt fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA tcfd v;kph ds fo}ku vf/koDrk aus i{kdkjku ds e/; gq, jkthukes ds rF;ksa dks Lohdkj djrs gq, ;kphx.k ds fo:) ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ jn~n fd;s tkus esa vukifRr tkfgj dhA

¶19

4- lquk x;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

¶20

5- gLrxr izdj.k esa xr rkjh[k is'kh 10-01-2025 dks bl U;k;ky; dh leUo; ihB }kjk nksuksa gh i{kdkjku dks vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ds le{k mifLFkr gksus ds fy, funsZf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dks funsZ'k fn;k x;k Fkk fd og i{kdkjku ds e/; gq, jkthukes ds rF; dks rLnhd djds viuh fjiksVZ U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djsaxsA

¶21

6- fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd dh vksj ls vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr rF;kRed fjiksVZ fnukafdr 26-01-2025 vkt U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr dh xbZ] ftls vfHkys[k ij fy;k tkrk gSA

¶22

7- mDr fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj ifjoknh vafdr dqekj e; vkjksihx.k nhisUnz mQZ nhiw] nhun;ky] eukst }kjk jkthukek ckcr izkFkZuki= lacaf/kr vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj i{kdkjku ds e/; gq, jkthukes ds rF; vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk izekf.kr fd;s x;s gSA

¶23

8- pwafd i{kdkjku ds e/; jkthukek gks x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ukdkfcy jkthukek ds vijk/k dh /kkjkvksa esa ntZ ,QvkbZvkj Hkh jn~n dh tk ldrh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; 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] esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlj.k esa dkfcy jkthukek ds vfrfjDr ukdkfcy jkthukek ds vijk/k dh /kkjkvksa esa ntZ ,QvkbZvkj Hkh fujLr dh tk ldrh gSA

¶24

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-8547/2024]

¶25

09vr% mijksDrkuqlkj i{kdkjku ds e/; gq, jkthukes ds vk/kkj ij Fkkuk m|ksx uxj] ftyk lhdj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 653@2024 fujLr dh tkrh gS rFkk mDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ls lacaf/kr vU; dksbZ vkijkf/kd dk;Zokgh yafcr gks rks mls Hkh mijksDrkuqlkj fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA

¶26

10lHkh yafcr izkFkZuk&i=ksa dks Hkh mijksDrkuqlkj fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA

¶27

( VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶28

MAHESH ADWANI /88

Dipendra @ Deepu Son of Shri Gangadhar, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipendra @ Deepu Son of Shri Gangadhar, 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

Bhairumal Khatri S/O Late Shri Gagumal Vs State of Rajasthan

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

Tarsem Kumar S/O Shri Maruram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Harveer Singh S/O Om Prakash Jat, Vs Ghanshyam Verma S/O Khairuram Verma

Ganesh Bawariya S/O Sardar Bawariya Vs State of Rajasthan

Union of India Vs Roshanlal Jaat S/O Shri Ghisu Lal