Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Seema Banshiwal D/O Shri Bhagwan ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:10548) on 29 February, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:10548]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 957/2024
1. Smt. Seema Banshiwal D/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay
Banshiwal W/o Shri Inyat Ali, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Banshiwal Khorabeesal, Jaipur And Presentaly R/o With
Her Husband At Ward No. 05 Mahajan, Bikaner Rajasthan
2. Inayat Ali S/o Shri Shoakat Ali, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Ward No. 05, Mahajan Bikaner Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Smt. Vimala Devi W/o Lt. Shri Bhagwan Sahay Banshiwal,
Aged About 49 Years, R/o R/o Raiger Mohlla, Near Jeep
Bus Stand Khorabisal Police Station Karghani, Jaipur
Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Poswal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna, PP
Mr. Timan Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
29/02/2024
1. The petitioners and the complainant/respondent No.2 are
present in person and they have been duly identified by their
respective counsel.
2. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, the victim/petitioner No.1 and
accused - petitioner No.2 have approached this Court with a
prayer to quash the FIR No.851/2020 lodged at Police Station
Karghani, Jaipur (West) for the offence punishable under Section
363 of IPC, which was registered on the basis of the written report
[2024:RJ-JP:10548] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-957/2024]
submitted by respondent No.2 (mother of the victim/petitioner
No.1).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
victim/petitioner No.1 and accused-petitioner No.2 have entered
into marriage (Nikah) and they are blessed with a girl child out of
their wedlock. He further submits that presently petitioners are
leading peaceful and happy married life. The written compromise
has been annexed with this petition. He has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu &
Ors. Vs. Radhika & Anr. reported in (2011) 10 SCC 705.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the
complainant do not dispute the aforesaid factual position. Under
the instructions of complainant/respondent No.2, learned counsel
submits that daughter of respondent No.2 (petitioner No.1) and
petitioner No.2 have entered into marriage and they are living a
happy married life and she has no objection, if the FIR in question
is quashed.
5. In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions
made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made
available for my perusal; considering that the parties have
resolved their dispute and also finding that the present case is
wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by 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] and in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. Vs. Radhika
[2024:RJ-JP:10548] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-957/2024]
& Anr. (2011) 10 SCC 705, the aforesaid FIR is liable to be
quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.
6. In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed
and the FIR No.851/2020 lodged at Police Station Karghani, Jaipur
(West) is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.
7. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
543-Nirmala
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
