Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deva Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 545/2022
1. Deva Ram S/o Bhanwara Ram, Aged About 37 Years, B/c
Dewasi, Resident At Devasiyo Ka Bas, Bawarla, Tehsil And
Distt. Jodhpur.
2. Bhanwara Ram S/o Gayad Ram, Aged About 62 Years, B/c
Dewasi, Resident At Devasiyo Ka Bas, Bawarla, Tehsil And
Distt. Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Gulabi Devi W/o Kana Ram, B/c Dewasi, Residing At
Devasiyo Ka Bas, Bawarla, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
3. Kana Ram S/o Gayad Ram, B/c Dewasi, Residing At
Devasiyo Ka Bas, Bawarla, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhikha Ram Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
Mr. Raghunath Bishnoi, for Complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
15/02/2022
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of
the FIR No.12/2022 of Police Station Dangiyawas, Distt. Jodhpur
City East for the offences under Sections 323, 341. 452, 354 and
382 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
impugned FIR has been lodged by the complainant due to some
misunderstanding and now the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-545/2022]
entered into compromise with the petitioners as the dispute
between them has already been settled amicably.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has
submitted that the parties have already settled their dispute
amicably and entered into compromise. It is also submitted that
respondent No.2 has already filed an application before the
Investigating Officer apprising him about the factum of
compromise.
Learned counsel for the parties, thus, prayed that the
impugned FIR may kindly be quashed.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report,
wherein it is mentioned that the police after thorough
investigation into the matter has found that offence under Section
323 and 341/34 IPC are made out against the petitioners,
however, no other offence is made out against them.
The Investigating Officer, present in person, has submitted
that the parties have appeared before the IO and apprised about
the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. It
appears that the dispute arose between the parties on a trivial
issue, however, now the same has been settled amicably and the
parties have entered into compromise.
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
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-545/2022]
Punjab and Ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and several
other judgments has held as under:-
"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."
There is no reason to doubt that the private respondents
have 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 private respondents do
not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, it
is a fit case wherein the proceeding pending against the
petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Ramgopal (supra) and in the facts and
circumstances as noted above, this criminal misc. petition is
allowed and the impugned FIR No.12/2022 lodged at Police
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-545/2022]
Station Dangiyawas, Distt. Jodhpur City East for the offences
under Sections 323, 341. 452, 354 and 382 of IPC against the
petitioners is hereby quashed.
Stay petition is disposed of.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
13-Arun/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
