Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohammad Aarif vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:8214) on 15 February, 2024
Author: Madan Gopal Vyas
Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas
[2024:RJ-JD:8214] (1 of 6) [CRLMP-5372/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5372/2023
Mohammad Aarif S/o Mohammad Suleman, Aged About 35
Years, 154, Lodipura, Dist. Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mohammad Salim S/o Liyakat Husain, Aged About 52
Years, Bajarwada, P.s. Kotwali, Dist. Nagaur, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aanda Ram Choudhary, PP
Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Judgment
15/02/2024
The present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section
482 of CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the
FIR No. 380/2023, lodged at Police Station Kotwali, District
Nagaur for offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 341 and
307 of IPC on the basis of amicable settlement between the
parties.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
matter has already been amicable settled between the parties and
respondent No. 2 is not inclined to proceed further in the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
not a habitual offender and there was no ill intention of the
petitioner to kill the respondent No. 2 herein. It is submitted that
[2024:RJ-JD:8214] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-5372/2023]
the petitioner had no intention to target the respondent No. 2. It
is further submitted that the offence under Section 307 IPC would
fall in the category of serious offences but, it would be upon this
Hon'ble Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether
such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body,
nature of weapon used etc. It is further submitted that this
Hon'ble Court is within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceedings if it is known that because of the compromise arrived
at between the parties, there is remote possibility of securing
conviction of the accused. In support of his arguments, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Gian Singh
vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303,
judgment of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh
delivered in the case of Sheikh Feroz Ahmad Vs. Union
Territory of J&K & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 214
and the orders passed by this Court dated 21.11.2023 in Vakil &
Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No. 7095/2023) and dated 21.09.2023
in Anil Vs. State of Rajasthan And Another in (S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No. 4997/2023).
3. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant concurs with
the fact of amicable settlement between the parties and further
submits that he has no objection in case the impugned FIR is
quashed.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed
the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned
Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence under Section 307 of
[2024:RJ-JD:8214] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-5372/2023]
the IPC is a serious offence and, therefore, is to be treated as
crime against the society and not against the individual alone. It is
further submitted that an offence under Section 307, IPC cannot
be settled between the parties like any other private dispute.
Therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section
307 of IPC which have a serious impact on the society cannot be
quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC on the
ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst
themselves. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that while
exercising its power under Section 482 of CrPC to quash an FIR or
criminal proceedings, this Court has to have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that heinous or
serious crimes which are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a
compromise between the offender and the complainant. In
support of his arguments, learned Public Prosecutor relied upon
the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of
Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 642 and in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2019),
decided on 05.03.2019.
5. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the
criminal proceedings on the ground that there is a
settlement/compromise between the victim/complainant and the
offender, this Court is required to also consider the antecedents
and the conduct of the accused. In the present case, the petitioner
is not a habitual offender and he did not fire the pistol while
[2024:RJ-JD:8214] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-5372/2023]
aiming at the complainant. Hence, it is submitted that looking to
the peculiar circumstances of the case, the FIR against the
petitioner may be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the
present case, it is an admitted position that there was no intention
of the petitioner to target the respondent No. 2 and the
respondent no. 2 herein, has already amicably settled the matter
with the petitioner and in the compromise deed, the respondent
No.2 has specifically stated that he does not want to proceed
further against the petitioner in the criminal proceedings initiated
by him. Therefore, it is a fit case, wherein this Court may exercise
its inherent power enshrined under Section 482 of CrPC and it is
prayed that the present criminal miscellaneous petition may be
allowed on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties
and the impugned FIR may be quashed and set aside.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record and the judgments relied upon by
learned counsel for the rival parties.
8. In the present case, FIR against the petitioner has been
lodged for the offence under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 307 of
IPC. I have perused the allegations made in the FIR against the
petitioner. In the FIR, it is stated that when the respondent No. 2
was standing at the medical store, he sustained a bullet injury
near his nose, which was allegedly fired by the petitioner. I have
also perused the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Nagaur in Criminal Miscellaneous
Bail Application No. 539/2023, whereby the learned trial Court has
granted bail to the petitioner. In this order too, it has been
[2024:RJ-JD:8214] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-5372/2023]
recorded that on account of fire made by the petitioner, the
respondent No. 2 who was standing at a medical store suffered
bullet injury. I have also perused the compromise deed wherein
the respondent No. 2 specifically submits that the petitioner did
not target the respondent No. 2 with an intention to kill him.
Therefore, the respondent No. 2 entered into a compromise with
the petitioner and agreed to not to proceed in the criminal
proceedings initiated by him against the petitioner.
9. I have also perused the judgments relied upon by the
respective parties. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has time and again
reiterated that offence under Section 307, IPC would fall in the
category of serious offence and the same cannot be treated with
leniency. However, on the basis of prima facie analysis, it can be
seen that the injury sustained by the complainant was not
targeted. The petitioner did not have any intention to cause injury
to the petitioner. Further, in view of the settlement arrived at
between the parties, there are practically no or very bleak chances
of conviction of the petitioner. The accused petitioner is not a
habitual offender. Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the FIR against the
petitioner deserves to be quashed.
10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that it is a fit case to quash and set aside the
impugned FIR on the basis of amicable settlement arrived at
between the parties.
11. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is
allowed and FIR No. 380/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali
[2024:RJ-JD:8214] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-5372/2023]
Nagaur, District Nagaur and all consequential proceedings initiated
therein for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 307 of
IPC are hereby quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of
compromise arrived at between the parties.
12. The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
234-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
