Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kheraj Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 February, 2022

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4759/2021

1. Mangla Ram S/o Shri Chutraram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Kabuli Dhani (Gundau), Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.

2. Ratnaram S/o Shri Chutraram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Kabuli Dhani (Gundau), Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through PP

2. Hanumanaram S/o Shri Aasu Ram, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Duthva, Police Station Chitalwana, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1916/2021

1. Kheraj Ram S/o Shri Sajan Ram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Kotra, Tehsil Raniwada, District Jalore.

2. Suja Ram S/o Shri Kheraj Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kotra, Tehsil Raniwada, District Jalore.

3. Bhagirath Ram S/o Shri Thakra Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Mokhatara, Tehsil Raniwada, District Jalore.

4. Ghewar Ram S/o Shri Chutra Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Kabuli Ki Dhani, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.

5. Babulal S/o Shri Chutra Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Kabuli Ki Dhani, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.

6. Bhajanlal S/o Shri Manglaram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Sedia, Tehsil Raniwada, District Jalore.

7. Devilal S/o Shri Bhagirath Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Mokhtra, Tehsil Raniwada, District Jalore.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Hanumanaram S/o Shri Aasu Ram, Aged About 31 Years, By Caste Bishnoi, R/o Duthva, Police Station Chitalwana, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore.

                                                             ----Respondents





                                      (2 of 6)                   [CRLMP-4759/2021]



For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Devilal Rawla (through VC)
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
For Respondent No.2       :    Mr. Pawan Bharti for Mr. Jagdish
                               Kumar Vishnoi (through VC)



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                                    Order

07/02/2022

These criminal misc petitions have been filed under Section

482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing FIR

No.36/2020 of Police Station Karda, District Jalore for the offence

punishable under Section 143, 365, 323, 427, 395 of the IPC.

In the instant case, the complainant-respondent no.2 filed

the impugned FIR and as per the said FIR, the complainant-

respondent No.2 along with his wife and some other persons were

returning in a vehicle from Chennai to his native village on

01.04.2020 when the whole nation was under the lockdown due to

Covid-19. It is mentioned in the FIR that the police at one place

somewhere in Gujarat, due to restrictions imposed by the police,

the complainant-respondent No.2 left some of his companions and

proceeded further. It is alleged that on account of that, some

quarrel took place between some of the petitioners and the

complainant-respondent no.2 and when he and some of the

accused persons reached at District Jalore, their vehicle was

stopped and some accused persons assaulted him and his wife. It

is alleged that the accused persons also snatched Rs.50,000/-

from the complainant-respondent no.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

petitioners and the complainant-respondent no.2 are near

relatives and the main accused petitioner-Kheraj Ram is the

(3 of 6) [CRLMP-4759/2021]

maternal uncle of the complainant-respondent no.2. Learned

counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the incident

occurred due to some misunderstanding as the persons

accompanied the complainant-respondent no.2 in the vehicle while

returning from Chennai were under the impression that the

complainant-respondent no.2 left them in the journey without

there being any cause and the excuse taken by him that the police

did not allow much persons to travel during the lockdown is not

correct. It is further submitted that now the parties have entered

into compromise and the dispute between them has also been

settled amicably, therefore, this impugned FIR may kindly be

quashed.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has also

verified that the petitioners and the complainant-respondent No.2

are the near relatives and their dispute has now been amicably

settled, therefore, the complainant-respondent no.2 does not not

want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR.

Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 06.09.2021,

compromise arrived at between the parties has been verified by

the Investigating Officer, who is investigating into the allegations

levelled in the impugned FIR, and the factual report dated

05.02.2022 of this effect has been produced by the learned Public

Prosecutor.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned FIR.

It appears that the complainant-respondent no.2 and some

of the petitioners were working in Chennai for earning livelihood.

During the nation-wide lockdown imposed in the third week of

March, 2020, they were returning from Chennai (Tamil Nadu) in a

(4 of 6) [CRLMP-4759/2021]

vehicle along with other migrant labourers to reach to their native

village in District Jalore. At one place somewhere in Gujarat, the

police obstructed them in the vehicle and during that time, some

of the petitioners were forced to alight the vehicle, wherein they

were traveling, from there, some misunderstanding might have

taken place between the parties. The trauma of the migrant

labourers during the lockdown can be visualized. All the migrant

labourers were eager to reach to their native state anyhow, and it

was not unusual that during that process, some tensions between

them could have arose. Now, the parties have entered into

compromise as they are near relatives and settled their dispute

amicably.

It is admitted that the dispute between the parties has

already been settled amicably and the same has been verified by

the Investigating Officer.

Today also the learned counsel for the complainant-

respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that the complainant-

respondent no.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in

the impugned FIR as the dispute has already been resolved

between the parties.

Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated

29.09.2021 rendered in Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of

Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012) along with

Krishnappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal

No.1488/2012), after taking into consideration its earlier

decisions rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported

in (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of

Punjab and Ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and several

other judgments has held as under:-

(5 of 6) [CRLMP-4759/2021]

"19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra- ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

In my opinion, the nature of the offences as alleged in the

impugned FIR is private in nature. There is no reason to doubt

that the complainant-respondent no.2 has not entered into

compromise voluntarily and there is nothing adverse in respect

of the conduct of the petitioners prior to and after the

occurrence of the purported offences.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case

and looking to the fact that the dispute between the parties has

already been settled amicably and the complaianant-respondent

No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the

impugned FIr, it is a fit case wherein the FIR pending against the

petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under