Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jepa Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 January, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 5) [CRLMP-14/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 14/2023
Jepa Ram S/o Sh. Varda Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Jodhpur
Road, Ahore Teh. Ahore Teh. Ahore, Dist. Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Indra Devi W/o Mangi Lal, Indra Colony, Sheoganj, Dist.
Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SK Bhati, PP
Mr. Aidan Choudhary
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
03/01/2023
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondent no.2/complainant jointly submit that the petitioner
and the complainant have entered into compromise in the on-
going criminal proceedings. It is thus submitted that the parties
are not inclined to proceed further in the matter.
2. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of
Delhi & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2021 decided on
30.07.2021, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-
"3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint alleging,
inter alia, that the Appellant had committed an offence
Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is
undisputed that both the Accused (Appellant) and
Respondent No. 2 were living together for a
(Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 08:43:01 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-14/2023]
considerable while. The complainant's allegation is that
the Appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that
he is divorced. The complainant, according to the
accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.
4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties
were referred to mediation having regard to the fact
that a child was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year
2018). As a consequence, a mediated settlement
limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was
arrived at by them.
5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions
made on behalf of the complainant - who does not
dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for
pursuing the prosecution further, this Court is of the
considered view that the criminal proceedings must be
quashed.
6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case,
the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside;
the FIR (No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be
quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order will
not come in the way or in any manner prejudice the
contentions of the parties in any other pending
proceedings, which shall 20-09-2022 be decided in
accordance with law.
7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the
following order for consideration passed by this Court in S.B.
Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.4119/2021 decided on 06.04.2022
(Dhabba Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), which reads as
follows:-
"1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-
petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to
(Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 08:43:01 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-14/2023]
quash the FIR No.94/2021 registered at Police Station
Gida, District Barmer for the offences punishable under
Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the
I.T. Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during
pendency of investigation, the petitioner and the
complainant have entered into a compromise and thus,
no dispute remains pending between them and the
complainant does not wish to continue with the present
litigation.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the compromise
in question has been produced before the Investigating
Officer, who has verified the factum of compromise and
the same has been executed without any force or
coercion.
4. Learned counsel submits that the complaint in
question came be to be lodged by the complainant on
account of an audio of the conversation between the
petitioner and complainant getting viral and now the
parties have decided to resolve the dispute having
regard to the fact that the petitioner and complainant
are close relatives.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant also accepts the
fact of the compromise and submits that even the
husband of the prosecutrix/complainant has signed the
compromise.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
considering that the complainant is aunt (Mami) of the
present petitioner and also considering that the FIR in
question was lodged under social pressure and also
finding that the present case is wholly covered by the
principle of law laid down by the Larger Bench of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab & Anr-reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in
the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary
Bhajan Lal & Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604], the aforesaid FIR
is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at
between the parties.
7. In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is
allowed and the FIR No.94/2021 registered at Police
(Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 08:43:01 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-14/2023]
Station Gida, District Barmer is quashed and set aside.
Consequence to follow.
8. The stay application also stands disposed of."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a
compromise has been arrived at between the parties, which
factum is reflected from the affidavit sworn before the trial court
as well as the representation dated 23.08.2022 addressed to the
Superintendent of Police, Jalore. The said report is taken on
record.
5. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on a
decision of Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh V/s. State of
Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303].
6. In view of compromise arrived at between the parties as also
the verification of factum of such compromise by the learned
Public Prosecutor, as discernible from the aforesaid factual report,
as also the careful perusal of the statement of prosecutrix and
applying the ratio of the decision in Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab & Anr. (supra); Dhabba Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Anr. (supra) & Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi
(supra), this Court deems it just and proper to invoke inherent
powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and
the FIR No.232/2022 registered at Police Station Ahore, District
Jalore, for the offence under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(D) IPC and
Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act alongwith
entire proceedings pursuant thereto pending before the court of
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases,
(Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 08:43:01 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-14/2023]
Jalore in Criminal Case No.68/2022 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Phuli
Kanwar @ Anita & Ors.), qua the petitioner, are hereby quashed.
8. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
176-Sanjay/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
