Mangu vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2881 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2881 Raj
Judgement Date : 22 February, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mangu 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. 1569/2021

1. Ramprasad S/o Girdhari Gurjar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ajitpura, Asind, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

2. Madhu S/o Pokhar Gurjar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Borela Asind, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

2. Vinod Kathat S/o Roshan Kathat, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Jaliya First, Beawar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

CONNECTED WITH

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1410/2021

Mangu S/o Sh. Pratap Bhil, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ajitpura, Panchayat Borela, Tehsil Asind, Police Station Asind, District Bhilwara.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan

2. Vinod Kathat S/o Shri Roshan, R/o Jaliya First, Beawer Sadar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioners-Ramprasad, Madhu : Mr. Mohit Sharma for Mr. Naman Mohnot

For Petitioner-Mangu : Ms. Shobha Prabhakar for Mr. N.K. Gurjar

For Respondent No.1-State : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.

For Respondent No.2-Vinod Kathat             : Mr. D.K. Gaur





                                          (2 of 5)                  [CRLMP-1569/2021]


             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                                      Order

22/02/2022

These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have

been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR

No.46/2021 dated 24.02.2021 of Police Station Asind, District

Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and

120-B IPC.

In the instant case the complainant-respondent No.2 has

filed the impugned FIR against the petitioners for the aforesaid

offences.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that on

the complaint filed on behalf of the complainant-respondent No.2,

proceedings under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC are pending.

It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that

the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioners have

compromised the matter and resolved the dispute between them

amicably.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have 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 complainant-respondent No.2 has

conceded that the dispute between the complainant-respondent

No.2 and the petitioners has already been settled and the

complainant-respondent No.2 does not want to press the

allegations levelled in the impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences.

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-1569/2021]

Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 07.04.2021,

the 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

08.11.2021 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 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 for the 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

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-1569/2021]

'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 complainant-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