Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jiya Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:43596) on 23 October, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:43596]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7368/2024
1. Jiya Ram S/o Sh.khuma Ram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Narwa Kalan Teh. Khinvsar, Ps Khinvsar, Dist. Nagaur.
2. Babu Ram @ Babu Singh S/o Sh.khuma Ram, Aged About
57 Years, R/o Narwa Kalan Teh. Khinvsar, Ps Khinvsar,
Dist. Nagaur.
3. Balu Ram S/o Sh. Khuma Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
Narwa Kalan Teh. Khinvsar, Ps Khinvsar, Dist. Nagaur.
4. Chuna Ram S/o Khuma Ram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Narwa Kalan Teh. Khinvsar, Ps Khinvsar, Dist. Nagaur.
5. Babu Ram S/o Purkha Ram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
Narwa Kalan Teh. Khinvsar, Ps Khinvsar, Dist. Nagaur.
6. Santosh W/o Jiyaram, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Narwa
Kalan Teh. Khinvsar, Ps Khinvsar, Dist. Nagaur.
7. Sayri W/o Chuna Ram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Narwa
Kalan Teh. Khinvsar, Ps Khinvsar, Dist. Nagaur.
8. Harkhu W/o Baluram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Narwa
Kalan Teh. Khinvsar, Ps Khinvsar, Dist. Nagaur.
9. Jyani W/o Omprakash, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Narwa
Kalan Teh. Khinvsar, Ps Khinvsar, Dist. Nagaur.
10. Kamli W/o Baburam, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Narwa
Kalan Teh. Khinvsar, Ps Khinvsar, Dist. Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Pema Ram Jat S/o Jairam Jat, R/o Narwa Kalan Teh.
Khinvsar, Ps Khinvsar, Dist. Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gourav Thanvi.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP.
Mr. Askaran Maru for R.2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
[2024:RJ-JD:43596] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-7368/2024]
23/10/2024
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings in Criminal Case
No.13/2013 pending before the Additional District & Sessions
Judge No.2, Nagaur, arising out of an FIR No.115/2012 dated
29.07.2012 registered at Police Station Khimasar, District Nagaur,
and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom for
offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325 and 307 of
IPC, is sought herein on the basis of compromise arrived between
the parties.
2. It is alleged that the petitioners-accused and the
complainant are known to each other as they belong to the same
family. The allegation against the petitioners is that on
27.07.2012, they went to the complainant's house and assaulted
him and his family members. It is now stated that the allegation
against the petitioners were made in the heat of the moment
during the registration of the FIR. Subsequently, parties have
buried their hatchet and have entered into a compromise,
pursuant to which, they wish to enjoy their cordiality with each
other.
3. Qua invocation of Section 307 of IPC, on a query to learned
counsel for the victim, he candidly submits that the allegation was
made in the heat of the moment as the injury suffered by the
victim subsequently turned out to be simple in nature and was
inflicted by a blunt weapon and not by a sharp weapon. He further
states that the complainant does not wish to press any charges
against the accused-petitioners.
[2024:RJ-JD:43596] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-7368/2024]
4. On a Court query qua the genuineness of the compromise,
learned counsel for the petitioners rely on an order of the learned
trial court dated 26.10.2023 and submits that based on the same
very compromise, proceedings under Section 341, 323, 325 and
149 of IPC were dropped against the petitioners. However, as the
remaining offence i.e. Section 148 and 307 read with Section 149
IPC, are of non-compoundable nature, the charge under said
sections have not been dropped by the learned trial court.
5. 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.
6. 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. (corresponding
Section 528 of BNSS), it is deemed expedient to quash the
FIR/proceedings in question to avoid undue hardship to the private
parties for mutual good relations and societal peace.
7. 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].
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Criminal Case
No.13/2013 pending before the Additional District & Sessions
Judge No.2, Nagaur, arising out of an FIR No.115/2012 dated
29.07.2012 registered at Police Station Khimasar, District Nagaur,
and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom for
[2024:RJ-JD:43596] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-7368/2024]
offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325 and 307 of
IPC, qua the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
75-/Jitender//-
Whether Fit for Reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
