Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaichand vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 February, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 416/2022
1. Jaichand S/o Kodaram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward
No. 8 5, N.g.r., Village Nagrana, Tehsil Sangariya,
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
2. Sanjay @ Surjeet S/o Kodaram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Ward No. 8 5, N.g.r., Village Nagrana, Tehsil Sangariya,
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mandeep Singh S/o Chuhadsingh, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Ward No. 4, Nai Khuja, Hanumangarh, Presently
Posted As Junior Engineer, Jvvnl.
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.
with Ms. Kamala Goswami
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Amit Pareek
for Mr. Gajendra Singh Rajawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
17/02/2022
This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR
No.602/2021 dated 31.10.2021 of Police Station Sangariya,
District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections
332 and 353 IPC.
In the instant case the respondent No.2 filed the impugned
FIR at Police Station Sangariya, District Hanumangarh against the
petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-416/2022]
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the
complaint filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, proceedings
under Sections 332 and 353 IPC are pending. It is further
contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
respondent No.2 and the petitioners have compromised the matter
and resolved the dispute between them amicably.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the
dispute has already been amicably settled between the parties the
impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners
may kindly be quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has conceded that
the dispute between the respondent No.2 and petitioners has
already been settled.
Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 01.02.2022,
compromise entered 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
16.02.2022 of this effect has been submitted by learned Public
Prosecutor.
Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned
Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
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 learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has
categorically submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to
press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR for the
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-416/2022]
aforesaid offences 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:-
"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 respondent no.2 has not entered into compromise
voluntarily and there is nothing adverse in respect of the conduct
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-416/2022]
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 respondent No.2 does not
want to press the allegations levelled in impugned FIR for the
aforesaid offences, it is a fit case wherein the FIR pending against
the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Keeping in view 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 Court is of the opinion that it
is a fit case, wherein the FIR pending against the petitioners can
be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the
FIR No.602/2021 dated 31.10.2021 of Police Station Sangariya,
District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections
332 and 353 IPC is hereby quashed.
Stay petition is disposed of.
The factual report dated 16.02.2022 be taken on record.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
11-Babulal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
