Yashpal Gupta vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 18332 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6595/2021

1. Yashpal Gupta S/o Shri Chiranji Lal, Aged About 58 Years, B/c Agarwal, R/o House No. 1187, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar.

2. Rinkesh Gupta S/o Shri Yashpal Gupta, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Agarwal, R/o House No. 1187, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. Jagdish S/o Shri Ram Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Kumhar, R/o Village Khunichak, PS Goluwala, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP Mr. Shardul Singh Bishnoi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment

02/12/2021

1. It is stated at the Bar that a compromise has been arrived at

between the parties and it is borne out from the compromise that

the complainant is not inclined to proceed further in the matter.

The compromise deed has been filed before the learned trial court.

2. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on a

decision of Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of

Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of M.P. V/s Laxmi

Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296] & Ram Gopal and Ors.

Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1489 and

1488 of 2012 decided on 29.09.2021).

3. It is also submitted that upon the aforementioned

compromise, the learned court below vide order dated 12.10.2021

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-6595/2021]

has verified the compromise between the parties to the extent of

the offence under Section 420 of IPC and discharged the

petitioners of the offence under Section 420 of IPC. However, the

learned court below has declined to verify the compromise as

regards the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B

and 34 IPC on the ground that the said offences are non-

compoundable.

4. The counsel for the parties are in agreement that the dispute

between them has been amicably settled and therefore, the

complainant does not want to pursue the matter.

5. In view of compromise arrived at between the parties as well

as the aforesaid order dated 12.10.2021 of the learned court

below and applying the ratio in decision of Gian Singh vs. State

of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of M.P. V/s Laxmi

Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296] & Ram Gopal and Ors.

Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1489 and

1488 of 2012 decided on 29.09.2021), I deem it just and

proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C.

6. Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the

petitioners are discharged of the offences under Sections 465,

467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of IPC as well the subsequent

proceedings of the same pending before the court of Judicial

Magistrate, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

85-Shahenshah/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)