Pratik Jain, S/O Pranesh Kumar Jain vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:34017)
2024 Latest Caselaw 5279 Raj/2

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 5279 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 8 August, 2024

Rajasthan High Court

Pratik Jain, S/O Pranesh Kumar Jain vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:34017) on 8 August, 2024

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:34017]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3508/2024
Pratik Jain, S/o Pranesh Kumar Jain, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
H.no. 162, Pushpanjali , Opposite Bahubali Park, Delhi- 110092.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.       Buddha Ram @ Budhram Gurjar, S/o Lt. Sh. Saradar @
         Sardar, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Khana Ka Jagar Karauli,
         Hindaun, Rajasthan- 322236.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek B. Sharma with Mr. Tushar Mr. Shubham Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mehla, PP Mr. Harsh Dadhich

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/08/2024

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is filed, with a prayer

to quash the FIR No. 120/2024 registered at Police Station,

Nadoti, Rajasthan for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of

IPC, on the basis of compromise effectuated between the parties

herein, in respect of their inter-se dispute.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

crux of the dispute is that the impugned FIR was filed for offences

under Section 279 and 304-A, of IPC. The alleged incident

occurred while the petitioner was traveling along his family, from a

religious place to their home-town. Moreover, the alleged offence

has been registered under the provisions of Section 279 and 304-

A of IPC and not as culpable homicide. The complainant is brother

[2024:RJ-JP:34017] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3508/2024]

of the deceased and is the only legal heir qua the deceased,

therefore, the instant compromise has been effectuated by him.

3. Learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that the

dispute at hand is inter-se private in nature, which has been

resolved by the parties amicably.

4. Heard and considered.

5. At the outset, this Court deems it appropriate to place

reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and

Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in

[2022 (14) SCC 531], relevant portion of which is reproduced

below:

"12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non- compoundable."

6. In view of the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in aforementioned case, and considering the personal nature

of dispute, which has been amicably settled between parties, this

Court deems it just and proper to allow the present misc. petition.

Compromise is taken on record.

7. Considering the aforementioned, the present criminal

miscellaneous petition is allowed and the FIR No. 120/2024

registered at Police Station, Nadoti, Rajasthan, with all

consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside.

[2024:RJ-JP:34017] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3508/2024]

8. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. Pending

application(s), if any, stand disposed of.