Smt. Leela vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7539 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:31259]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5764/2023

1. Smt. Leela W/o Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o- Village Dogiyal Ki Dhani, Jud, Teh Tiwari, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.)

2. Trilok Ram S/o Shri Pratap Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o- Dodiyon Ki Dhani, Kharda Mewasan, Tehsil Osiya, Jodhpur (Raj.)

3. Sukh Ram S/o Shri Kewal Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o- Chabarwalon Ki Dhaniyan, Kharda Mewasan, Tehsil Osian, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.)

4. Dhana Ram S/o Shri Mula Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o- Chabarwalon Ki Dhaniyan, Kharda Mewasan, Tehsil Osian, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.)

5. Durga Ram S/o Shri Arjun Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o- Godara Ki Dhaniyan, Kelawa Kallan, Tehsil Baori, Dist. Jodhp9Ur (Raj.)

6. Madan S/o Shri Prema Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o-

Dogiyal Ki Dhaniyan, Jud, Tehsil Tiwari,dist. Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Lumba Ram S/o Shri Dungar Ram, R/o- Kelwa Kalan, Teh Baori, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jog Singh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Gauri, PP Mr. Sharwan Dass Vaishnav Mr. K.K. Shah

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Order 21/09/2023

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties

have entered into a compromise in the on-going criminal

proceedings. In such circumstances, the impugned FIR against the

petitioners may be quashed.

This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of

[2023:RJ-JD:31259] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5764/2023]

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 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."

Learned counsels for the petitioners 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

[2023:RJ-JD:31259] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5764/2023]

(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 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:31259] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5764/2023]

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 Station Gida, District Barmer is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.

8. The stay application also stands disposed of."

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a

decision of Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh V/s. State of

Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303].

In view of compromise arrived at between the parties, 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.

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed qua the

petitioners and the F.I.R. No.125/2023 registered at Police Station

Karwar, District Jodhpur Metropolitan for the offences under

Sections 366-A, 342, 386 & 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 3 & 4

of POCSO Act against the petitioners are hereby quashed and set

aside.

Stay petition also stands disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 343-Rashi/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)