Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vishnu Shankar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42320) on 17 October, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:42320]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7080/2024
1. Vishnu Shankar S/o Manak Lal Suthar, Aged About 66
Years, R/o Lakshman Pura Ps, Dabok, Dist. Udaipur.
2. Ramlal Meena S/o Chunnilal @ Suna Meena, Aged About
44 Years, R/o Modi Majra Thala, Ps Kheroda, , Dist.
Udaipur.
3. Smt. Manki Bai W/o Lt. Moti Lal Meena, Aged About 65
Years, R/o Lakshman Pura Ps, Dabok, Dist. Udaipur.
4. Smt. Kani Bai W/o Lt. Teja Meena, Aged About 60 Years,
R/o Lakshman Pura Ps, Dabok, Dist. Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Valu Ram S/o Moti Lal Meena, R/o Lakshman Pura Ps,
Dabok, Dist. Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Burani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Siddhawat (R-2)
Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order
17/10/2024
1. Quashing of an FIR No.300/2022 dated 17.10.2022
registered at Police Station Dabok, District Udaipur under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC read with Sections 3(1)
(f), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled
Caste (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 and all subsequent
proceedings including Criminal Case No.66/2023 on the basis of
compromise arrived between the parties, is sought herein.
[2024:RJ-JD:42320] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7080/2024]
2. On a Court query qua the genuineness of the compromise,
learned counsel for the petitioners points out to an order of the
learned trial court dated 25.06.2024 and submits that based on
the same very compromise, proceedings under Section 406 and
420 of IPC were dropped against the petitioners. However, as the
remaining offences were non-compoundable in nature, the
charges under said Sections were not been dropped by the
learned trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties
have buried their hatchet and have thus entered into a
compromise. Pursuant to which, they now wish to enjoy their
cordiality with each other.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the
complainant concur with the fact of compromise and submit that
in view of the compromise, they have no objection.
5. The genuineness of compromise is not in dispute. However,
since the trial Court was not empowered to compound certain
offences, the criminal proceedings could not be quashed. In the
premise, in the larger interest of justice, invoking inherent powers
vested with this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528
of BNSS), it is deemed expedient to quash the FIR/proceedings in
question. Reference in this context may be had to judgment
rendered in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
[(2012) 10 SCC 303].
6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.300/2022
dated 17.10.2022 registered at Police Station Dabok, District
Udaipur under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC
read with Sections 3(1)(f), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
[2024:RJ-JD:42320] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7080/2024]
Tribes and Scheduled Caste (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989
and all subsequent proceedings including Criminal Case
No.66/2023 are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise
arrived between the parties.
7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
12-DhananjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
