Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dharampal vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 February, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 451/2022
1. Dharampal S/o Sh. Devi Lal, Aged About 45 Years, Sonri,
Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. Manish S/o Sh. Dharampal, Aged About 21 Years, Sonri,
Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
3. Vikram S/o Sh. Dharampal, Aged About 18 Years, Sonri,
Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Rajendra Prasad S/o Sh. Devi Lal, Aged About 42 Years,
Sonri, Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP
Mr. N.K. Sharma for respondent No.2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
22/02/2022
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
has been preferred by the petitioners with a prayer for
(2 of 6) [CRLMP-451/2022]
quashing of FIR No.565/2021 lodged at Police Station
Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh.
The impugned FIR has been lodged at the instance
of respondent No.2 alleging therein that when he along
with his father and son doing some work in their
agricultural field, the petitioners suddenly came there and
started quarreling with them. It is further alleged by the
respondent No.2 that petitioner No.1 Dharampal had
inflicted an injury on the head of his father Devilal and
other petitioners have started assaulting them. It is also
stated by the complainant that after hearing hue and cry,
Ramlal and Chetram came there and took them to
hospital at Hanumangarh. It is alleged by the respondent
No.2 that his father Devilal was thereafter referred to a
hospital at Bikaner where he is still unconscious.
On receiving this report, the police started
investigation; recorded statement of the witnesses and
while taking into consideration the injury reports has
concluded that injured Rajendra had received as many as
two injuries, out of which, one injury is on his forearm,
which is grievous in nature, whereas injured Devilal had
received two injuries, out of which, one injury is on his
head, which is also grievous in nature.
(3 of 6) [CRLMP-451/2022]
The police has concluded the investigation and found
that the petitioners are guilty of commission of offence
under Section 447, 323, 325, 341, 307 read with Section
34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 are real
brothers and were having some dispute in relation to
partition of the agricultural land. It is further submitted
that on the day of the incident, some altercation took
place between the petitioners and the respondent No.2,
which resulted into scuffle, in which, the respondent No.2
and his father had received injuries. It is also submitted
that with the intervention of the relatives, the dispute
between the parties has been settled amicably and in
such circumstances, the impugned FIR may be quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also
verified the factum of compromise arrived at between the
parties and submitted that he has no objection if the
impugned FIR is quashed.
On 16.2.2022, this Court directed the petitioners,
respondent No.2 and injured Devilal to remain present
before this Court on the next date of hearing and
pursuant to that, the petitioners, respondent No.2 and
(4 of 6) [CRLMP-451/2022]
injured Devilal are present in person before this Court
today.
The respondent No.2 and injured Devilal have
submitted that the dispute between them and the
petitioners was in relation to partition of agricultural land
and now the same has already been settled amicably. It
is also submitted that the respondent No.2 and injured
Devilal have no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed
on the basis of compromise arrived at between the
parties.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the material available on record, this
Court is of the opinion that ordinarily, FIR in relation to a
heinous crime cannot be quashed on the basis of
compromise arrived at between the parties. In the
present matter also, the police has concluded that the
petitioners are involved in commission of a heinous crime
such as attempt to commit murder, however, after going
through the charge-sheet and taking into consideration
the fact that it is not a case of repeated blows; keeping in
view the fact that the fight erupted between the parties
all of a sudden and there was no preparation on the part
of the petitioners and further taking into consideration
the fact that the petitioner No.1 and the complainant-
(5 of 6) [CRLMP-451/2022]
respondent No.2 are brothers and the injured Devilal is
their father and as the dispute has already been settled
amicably and the parties have arrived at a compromise, it
would be appropriate to end the criminal proceedings at
this stage as if the same are continued, it may result in
another dispute between the close relatives.
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
(6 of 6) [CRLMP-451/2022]
and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons,
prior to and after the occurrence of the purported
offence and/or other relevant considerations."
Having considered the overall facts and
circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that
the dispute between the parties, who are close
relatives, has already been settled amicably and the
complainant-respondent No.2 does not want to press
the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, it is a fit
case wherein the impugned FIR 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 noted above, this criminal
misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR
No.565/2021 lodged at Police Station Nohar, Distt.
Hanumangarh against the petitioners for the offence
under Section 447, 323, 325, 341, 307 read with
Section 34 IPC is hereby quashed.
Stay petition is disposed of.
The factual report dated 15.2.2022 submitted by the
learned Public Prosecutor is taken on record.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
40-msrathore/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
