Rajasthan High Court
Abhisehk Khuteta S/O Babulal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 October, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6096/2021
1. Abhishek Khuteta S/o Babulal Khuteta, Resident Of 287,
Govind Nagar (East) Amer Road, Jaipur.
2. Pramod Khandelwal S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Aakar,
Resident Of 269, Ganesh Nagar Vistar, Near Kardhani
Scheme, Harnathpura, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
----Accused/Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
2. Tapan Sharma S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Resident
Of 1925, Ojha House, Brahma Marg, Ramganj Bazar,
Jaipur.
----Complainant/Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP
Mr. Santosh Singh Shekhawat
for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
06/10/2021
This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
has been filed for quashing the criminal proceeding under Sections
467, 468 & 471 of IPC in the Criminal Case No.2127/2017, Tapan
Sharma Vs. Abhishek & Ors. pending in the Court of learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.10, Jaipur
Metropolitan-I, Jaipur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Criminal
Case No. 2127/2017, Tapan Sharma Vs. Abhishek & Ors. pending
in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6096/2021]
No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur arises out of dispute which is
predominantly of civil and private in nature. He submitted that the
dispute has amicably been settled between the parties and the
learned trial Court has, vide its order dated 14.09.2021, quashed
the proceeding qua Section 420 & 406 of IPC being
compoundable; but, declined to acknowledge the same qua
Sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC being non-compoundable.
Referring the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in
cases of Gian Singh versus State of Punjab & Anr. reported in
JT 2012 (9) SC-426 & Narinder Singh & Ors. versus State of
Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 351, he prayed for
quashing the pending criminal proceeding against them.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal
miscellaneous petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant
acknowledging the factum of compromise between the parties,
submitted that he has no objection if the criminal proceeding in
question is quashed.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
From the material on record, it is apparent that the dispute,
predominantly of civil and private in nature, has amicably been
settled between the parties and the learned trial Court vide its
order dated 14.09.2021, quashed the proceeding qua Sections
420 & 406 of IPC on the basis of compromise. In view thereof and
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases of
Gian Singh (supra) & Narinder Singh (supra), this Court
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-6096/2021]
deems it just and proper to quash the criminal proceeding pending
against the petitioners.
Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
Criminal proceeding under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC in the
Criminal Case No.2127/2017, Tapan Sharma Vs. Abhishek & Ors.
pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur is quashed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
PRAGATI/91
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
