Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Subhash Sihag vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40019) on 21 November, 2023
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:40017]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7095/2023
1. Vakil S/o Shri Laxmanram @ Laxman Kumar, Aged About
28 Years, R/o 11 P Patroda, Tehsil And Dist. Anupgarh,
Rajasthan.
2. Pravin Pensiya S/o Shri Laxmanram @ Laxman Kumar,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o 11 P Patroda, Tehsil And Dist.
Anupgarh, Rajasthan.
3. Devendra Pensiya S/o Shri Manaram, Aged About 35
Years, R/o 11 P Patroda, Tehsil And Dist. Anupgarh,
Rajasthan.
4. Sonu Pensiya S/o Shri Rajendra, Aged About 32 Years, R/
o 11 P Patroda, Tehsil And Dist. Anupgarh, Rajasthan.
5. Raghuveer Singh @ Teji S/o Shri Jasvindra Singh, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Chak 12 Acbj, Tehsil And Dist.
Anupgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Subhash Syag S/o Shri Chetram, R/o Patroda, Tehsil And
Dist. Anupgarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected matter
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7117/2023
1. Subhash Sihag S/o Shri Chetram, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Ward No. 11,chak 11-P, Tehsil And Dist. Anoopgarh
2. Jagmeet Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 13 Md, Tehsil And Dist. Anoopgarh
3. Ramkishan S/o Shri Sadhuram, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o ,chak 11-P, Tehsil And Dist. Anoopgarh
4. Ravinder Jat S/o Shri Devi Lal, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Ward No. 12, Chak 11-P, Tehsil And Dist. Anoopgarh
5. Jaskarn Singh S/o Shri Ajyab Singh, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Chak 9-A, Tehsil And Dist. Anoopgarh
6. Sandeep Singh S/o Shri Bhupendra Singh, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Ward No.6, Chak 10 Md Dhani, Tehsil And
(Downloaded on 23/11/2023 at 09:24:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:40017] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-7095/2023]
Dist. Anoopgarh
7. Sushil Kumar S/o Shri Ram Pratap, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Chak 12 Md(B), Tehsil And Dist. Anoopgarh
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Parveen Pensiya S/o Shri Laxman Ram, R/o Patroda,
Anoopgarh
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.K. Gaur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
Mr. D.S. Thind
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
21/11/2023
1. The instant Misc. Petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.7117/2023 under Section 482 CrPC has been preferred by the
petitioners (whose named have been mentioned in the cause title)
for quashing the FIR No.657/2023 registered at the Police Station
Anoopgarh, for the offences under Sections 307, 341, 323, 147,
148, 149 IPC Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(VA) of
the SC/ST Act and S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.7095/2023 has
been filed by the petitioners (whose named have been mentioned
in the cause title) for quashing the FIR No.658/2023 registered at
the Police Station Anoopgarh for the offence under Sections 452,
307, 341, 323, 427. 147, 148 & 149 of the IPC.
[2023:RJ-JD:40017] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-7095/2023]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that cross FIRs
have been registered by the petitioners and complainant against
each other on a very trivial issue and now, the parties have
resolved their matter by a mutual compromise 04.11.2023,
therefore, the instant Misc. Petitions may be disposed of on the
ground of compromise, copy of the same has been already placed
on record.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the
prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits
that since the offences under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 and
452 IPC are not compoundable, therefore, matter should be
decided on merits only. Learned counsel for the respondent-
complainant does not dispute the fact regarding compromise
arrived at between the parties.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. The fact of compromise is reflecting from the record of the
case. It is also appearing that the parties originally belong to the
same vicinity. The offence under Sections 341, 325, 341, 323 and
427 of the IPC are compoundable offence. Although the other
offences, i.e under Sections307, 147, 148, 149 and 452 IPC are
non-compoundable, but this Court is aptly guided by the
pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10
[2023:RJ-JD:40017] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-7095/2023]
SCC 303, wherein it is propounded that if the parties resolve the
dispute amicably and the matter does not pertain to breach of
public peace and essentially, it is a dispute inter se/between the
parties, then in such circumstances, with a view to establish
harmony between two families, the proceedings can be quashed
by the high Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. In a recent judgment titled Murali Vs. State
represented by the Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal
No.24/2021), the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the quantum of
sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone by
them while considering the fact of compromise between the
parties, inter alia other aspects. Whenever the fact of compromise
is taken into consideration by the Court post conviction, discretion
shall be exercised with caution and while considering the
circumstances prevalent in the matter at hand. In the present
case, considering all the factors, including the fact of compromise
arrived between the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to
allow the Misc. petitions.
8. Accordingly, the criminal Misc. Petitions are allowed. The FIR
No.657/2023 and 658/2023 registered at the Police Station
Anoopgarh are hereby quashed and set aside.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
308-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
